Mummar Gaddafhi's Leadership Was A Net Gain For Libya And The World.
Debate Rounds (4)
I would measure the benefit of a particular leader or regime in the quality of life for the people for which
that regime provides. If you value this as well, then Mummar Gaddafhi was truly a great leader.If you hold true that a nation which sends aide to others in need, frees hostages in a foreign land, and pays millions in compensation to those abroad to those who were harmed as a result of one of your ordinary citizens is a just and generous nation, then Mummar Gaddafhi was a good leader.
I. The Improved Welfare Of The Libyan People:
-Libya's rating on the Human Development Index sat above the average for the Arab States, the world or even the mark for High Human Development.
-illiteracy rates in Libya have fallen from 61 per cent in 1971 to 14 per cent in 2001. As of 2005, the combined gross enrollment ratio for primary education stood at 95.9, thus ensuring that Libya is likely to achieve MDG Goal 2 within the 2015 time frame. (Human Development Report 2007/2008)
-Undernourishment sat under at a mere 5%(lower then many capitalist countries today)
-Free health care for all citizens
-less Libyans under the poverty line then contemporary Socialist nations Vietnam and Laos, or for that matter Russia or the United States.
"illiteracy has been almost wiped out, as has homelessness " a chronic problem in the pre-Gaddafi era, where corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centers around the country."
-Qaddafi lead in 1969 a bloodless coup that removed the corrupt and incompetent king Idris.
-Gaddafhi built the "Great Man-made River" over the course of decades and was still in production and the time of his death. In Africa it is well known that there have been many issues with clean drinking water, this grand project brought water in from the Sahara and gave water to the thirsty metropolises on the Libyan coastline.
II. International accomplishments:
-Aided Nelson Mandela and his efforts to liberate South Africa from the Racist Apartheid while France, Britain and the United States blocked UN action against the system.
-Sent money and aide to the oppressed Palestinians and their fight for freedom, In addition he strongly advocated for
peace in the region and the creation of a Democratic Isrealistine. This may seem like an empty gesture to some but The Arab League and The United States stood firm agianst any hope of such state and the bringing of peace.
-Before Amnesty International took it down Mummar Gaddafhi won a worldwide contest for which humanitarian figure inspired them to care about human rights. Gaddafhi inspired thousands if not millions to take actions for human rights and helping one another.
-Mummar Gaddafhi send money of his own design to the Phillipines to free hostages taken by foreign terrorists.
-Mummar Gaddafhi stood before the UN General Assembly and demanded the equality of all nations and not the dictatorship of a few permenant members.
-Mummar Gaddafhi's government payed millions in compensation to the victims of the lockerbe bombings which was caused by one of his citizens. When that citizen was released from prison and flown back to Libya he forgave him and greeted him like one of his own.
-Mummar Gaddafhi agreed to help curb immigration of Africans into Europe(Particularly Italy)
-Mummar Gaddafhi fought to transition Arab and African States onto a Gold dinar, what other world leader would stand against the fiat system and the domination of U.S. Dollar and Euro.
These International moves are testimate to the millions abroad Gaddafhi assisted and the many more he inspired and gave hope to of a better tommorow. Brother Leader unlike many leaders after their regime collapsed died a martyr for his cause. Many flee and seek asylum, but Gaddafhi stood by Libya even after a wave of brutal and disgusting extremist uprisings. 1 million Libyans to this day are still scattered abroad, many still salute Gaddafhi. A few brave men fight on in the Chaos that is Libya today. To them and to all of us Gaddafhi is an international hero who provides an example of how one may live. Beyond his whimsical eccentricities we see a man on a mission for humanity and his accomplishments beneficial to all.
I will rebut Pro's points and describe how the harms of Gaddafi's leadership has caused Libya and the world outweigh the possible improvements.
Effects on Libyan people:
It seems as if my opponent has simply made a list of some changes to Libya under Gaddafi but has not explained them. I will explain why these points are not as good as Pro makes them seem.
Most of these apparent "benefits" Pro lists have to do with Libya's advancement. Pro hasn't really explained anything, but I believe the idea he is trying to make here is that "under Gaddafi's leadership, Libya improved in many ways". Although some things in Libya have become better since pre-1969, we have to put these things into perspective.
Human rights & Health
Pro states that Gaddafi has caused the "Improved Welfare Of The Libyan People". Sorry, but using this as an example to prove Muammar Gaddafi's leadership was a net gain is wrong. It's true that Libya's HDI has gone up over the long term (currently ranking at a "very good" 64th, not even the best in Africa), but Libya's situation with human rights and development is nowhere near as good as Pro makes it seem, and when the revolutionary civil war began, under Gaddafi's leadership, human rights completely failed.
My opponent says that Gaddafi's leadership was good because he provided "Free health care for all citizens". I would like to think that any good leader who could afford it would definitely do the same, but what matters is that he did it, right? Well, actually, Libya's health care system, under Gaddafi's leadership, is nowhere near as good as Pro claims it is. Before the revolution, even though Libya did have healthcare improvement, it also had many huge problems.
One of Libya's most significant health issues was road traffic accidents. Mortality figures have doubled in the last 15 years and many people are left with permanent disability. A good leader would deal with the problem at its roots, and work on prevention more than on cure. But Gaddafi's constant neglect of one of the main problems (e.g. Better road laws, better roads etc.) is reason enough to say that through his neglect, he has caused many unnecessary problems for Libya.
Another major problem under Gaddafi's leadership is that a very large number of hospitals have had long periods of construction/renovation, some going on for as long as 8 or 9 years, while others just remain unfinished (e.g. Misrata and Sebha). This shows even further neglect, as a good leader would have dealt with the problem of lack of hospitals. This not only shows how Gaddafi further neglects Libya, but the fact that these unusable hospitals are still counted when determining HDI shows that the current figure is false and the real figure is much less.
That was pre-revolution. During the revolution, healthcare completely failed. The death toll for the war is up to 25,000. Hundreds of thousands of civilians became homeless and many died of illnesses in their poor conditions. Gaddafi was fighting the revolutionary army, but he has no excuse for neglecting these innocent civilians when they needed help to live. Furthermore, he committed human rights abuses to both soldiers and civilians. You cannot possibly say Libya has great health care when the leader allows this to happen.
Overall, Libya has indeed seem some improvement, but it is nowhere near as good as Pro makes it seem, and when the war began, Gaddafi's horrible treatment of his people shows that in terms of health and safety, he has had a net loss for Libya.
Education and Illiteracy.
My opponent claims that "illiteracy has been almost wiped out", however, this is a stretch from the truth. The actual figure is about 80% of Libyans who are literate. With about 20% of Libyans still completely illiterate, it is an exaggeration to call it "almost wiped out".
Nevertheless, an increase in literacy is good, right? Well, yeah, but this has to be put into perspective and compared with other countries. Currently, Libya ranks 10th out of the most literate African countries. Countries such as Zimbabwe & Equatorial Guinea, have literacy rates of around 90%. This is certainly less amazing when it is put into perspective rather than how Pro said it .
My opponent has obviously ignored the areas of education that have actually gone down. Gaddafi outlawed the teaching of English in public schools. This is ruining important areas of education. In international relations, English is the most important language, due to the continued dominance of USA and Britain in international affairs. By banning the teaching of English completely, Gaddafi is ruining the education/literacy of the next generation of Libyans, as by not being able to speak or read English, the next generation of Libyans i.e. Libya's future, will be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to international relations. This is clearly Gaddafi ruining other important types of literacy/education.
As you can see, some types of literacy has gone up, the opposition has exaggerated how great this actually is and has ignored some very important negative effects Gaddafi has had on Libya's education.
Gaddafi has caused a net loss when it comes to education and literacy by doing things such as banning the teaching of English, as this outweighs everything else.
Although while Gaddafi was in power, Libya did have some improvements, but his outlawing of areas of education and constant neglect of health problems (especially during the war) show that his effect on Libya was a net loss.
Effects on the World:
Pro talks about Gaddafi's "support" of Mandela, but this was solely because he tried to oppose what the West supported and support what the West didn't. The west ignored South Africa as Pro has said himself, and so Gaddafi supported him and his cause. Did Gaddafi have any impact on the ending of Apartheid? None at all, and so there is no need to go further on this point. Like this point, most of Pro's other points are also pointless/false.
To explain that Gaddafi was a net loss for the world, I will be talking about his support of terrorism.
Fact: Gaddafi supported terrorists all around the world, even ones which had nothing to do with him or Libya. Gaddafi shipped arms/ammunition to the IRA so they could attack Britain. This is a pointless support of terror which has been bad for the world.
In 1986 Libyan agents bombed a nightclub in Berlin. This caused the death of 3 and injuries of over 200. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing caused the death of 270 people. Pro stated that Gaddafi "[paid] millions in compensation to the victims". Libya had to claim responsibility for the bombings if it wanted to have sanctions removed. Gaddafi was never truly sorry. He supported these acts of terror.
Pro then lists some of Gaddafi's acts in the international community, such as "standing before the UN General Assembly". Gaddafi spoke for 90min instead of his allowed 15 and condemned the Security Council as a feudal organization. Like this example, most of Gaddafi's acts in the international community have been pointless attacks on others and sponsoring terror. Someone who does this has clearly caused a net loss for the world.
I have run out of characters describing the negative consequences of Gaddafi so I will continue in the next round.
Someone who bans the teaching of English has not improved literacy, someone who commits human rights crimes has not improved healthcare and someone who supports acts of terror cannot be called a hero.
A country does not rebel against a leader who does good, only against one which causes a net loss.
My opponent's points are far outweighed by what I've just said.
By the way, Pro should try to spell "Muammar Gaddafi" correctly if he wants to seem credible.
Gaddafi's cons outweigh his pros and he has caused a net loss for the world.
Firstly you can spell Gaddafhi 112 different ways..... so do not tell me my spelling is wrong because autocorrect says so.
I. "Improved Welfare Of The Libyan People". Sorry, but using this as an example to prove Muammar Gaddafi's leadership was a net gain is wrong. It's true that Libya's HDI has gone up over the long term (currently ranking at a "very good" 64th, not even the best in Africa)"
Well if you check the source you used(Wikipedia) you will find that the chart http://upload.wikimedia.org... still shows it as higher then any of her African neihbors...
Also if you read the HDI report in 2009 you will find Gaddafhi's libya ranked 37th in the entire world well above any fellow African nation. http://hdr.undp.org...
Also:"Most of these apparent "benefits" Pro lists have to do with Libya's advancement. Pro hasn't really explained anything, but I believe the idea he is trying to make here is that "under Gaddafi's leadership, Libya improved in many ways". Although some things in Libya have become better since pre-1969, we have to put these things into perspective.' What evidence do you have that refutes the accomplishments I listed as did my source?
II. Lets talk civil war. This documentary made by Tripoli citizens may shed some light on the events: , Gaddafhi's soliders did not fire and the brutality began
with Rebels sluaghtering soliders after they surrendered a military base to them. They proceeded to march never before used tanks into the city and crush the Pro-Gaddafhi supporters. You may also recall the brutal executions carried out against blank Pro-Gaddafhi soliders, some of who were denounced as mercenaries and kept in cages. I am sorry but in any war when you are waging a war against a vicious and brutal enemy you have the to kill them. It is called a civil war for a reason. Unfortunately for mankind, lost. This cannot be blamed on Gaddafhi as it was elements that lead to his defeat. if you do not believe me the lets reflect on the turning point of the Civil War, the second battle of Benghazi. Gaddafhi seemingly planned to retake Benghazi before Western nations could commit aggression against his regime. This being a purely Libyan conflict however proved to not remain Libyan. http://www.aljazeera.com... Gaddafhi's forces which threatened to finally liberate the Rebel capital were bombed by the air and from sea from Western forces. Gaddafhi eventually pulled back from and as we can see in the pattern of the war the rebel thus slowly pressed west which the occasional stalemate all the way to Site. So if you are going to claim Gaddafhi and the loyalists committed great violations against human rights you may want to look and who they were trying to stop. Gaddafhi said many times that this war was being pressed by Islamic extremists. After his death I am sure you have heard about the Benghazi attacks and continuing in Libya. Surely you cannot blame this on the Loyalists? Also if you try to assert that gaddafhi was a bad leader for losing a war on rebels being funded and backed by the powerful international military alliance in the world and various terrorist organizations that is not a very good argument. Might does not make right my friend.
III. read the following report from the World Health Organization:
Health status has improved: The Government provides free health care to all citizens. The country
I will rebut my opponent's points, then I provide some new arguments showing Gaddafi's harms.
Welfare of people & The Civil War:
My opponent claims "[Libya's HDI] as higher then any of her African neihbors... "
This is not true. Libya does not have the highest HDI in Africa. The country with the highest HDI is Seychelles with 0.806, far higher than Libya's 0.755. The coloured map my opponent provides is not reliable as it is hard to see small countries. That said, this debate is not about which African country is the best, I am simply pointing out a false statement from my opponent.
Now I would like to talk about the revolutionary war. My opponent embedded a self made
"documentary" about the revolution. I'm sorry, but this documentary is uncredible. There are no interviews, no documents, no sources etc. This is just a bunch of videos with a voiceover. This has nothing to make it a reliable non-biased source. Am I missing a "Part-2" with all the sources or something? If so, then sorry. But just this video alone is uncredible. It is incredibly biased.
My opponent's argument is about how the rebels were bad. He states things such as "Rebels sluaghtering soliders", "crush the Pro-Gaddafhi supporters" etc.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the rebels were a bunch of horrible people who committed every single war crime. It doesn't matter how "bad" the rebels were, this debate is about Gaddafi's actions being harmful, not about if there are people worse than him. Whether the rebels were bad or not, war crimes against them are still war crimes regardless of whether they are murderers or freedom fighters.
It is not right to label all the rebels as bad people, many were fighting for their freedom, but this is irrelevant to the debate. I would like to instead talk about these supposedly "bad" rebels.
What drives them to be "bad"? If they truly commit such horrific crimes, what is their reason for doing so? Someone who would commit such atrocities must clearly have been incredibly motivated, and what motivated them?
These rebels were motivated by their desire to remove Gaddafi from his reign. If they were happy about his control of the country, the bad rebels would not be motivated to do such things. But since they were motivated to go so far, Gaddafi's leadership must truly have been harmful. These rebels may have committed crimes, because their want to get rid of Gaddafi's tyranny was so great.
People will always prefer a world where they are better of compared to one where they are not. If these Libyan citizens were happy under Gaddafi's rule then they wouldn't have tried to change anything. The fact they staged a revolution shows that they knew that Gaddafi's leadership was harmful and so they needed to change it for their own good. These actions show that Libyan citizens themselves knew that Gaddafi's leadership was overall harmful to them.
My opponent blames the war on "the West". Yes, NATO forces intervened. Why? What do they have to get out of it? War is terribly expensive, NATO doesn't just jump into conflicts for fun. In this case NATO intervened because the UN voted on it (Resolution 1973). The UN represents the best interests of the world. If the UN democratically believed that Gaddafi's leadership was harmful, then this represents the world's view. This shows Gaddafi's leadership was harmful to the world.
My opponent blames everything on the rebels & "the West", yet the rebels were motivated by Gaddafi's cruelty, and the intervention of "the West" (actually the world, as it was a UN majority decision) shows that the whole world knew how harmful Gaddafi's leadership was: Enough to need to use war to end it.
Libyan Health & Literacy:
My opponent seems to have just Copy+Pasted some health report here (Source link please?). You'll notice that this health report includes dates from 1970 - 2009. Of course, the civil war was 2011, and most of my arguments were on civilian condition during the war. I agree that things got slightly better from 1970 - 2009, but:
Things got slightly better all over the world in this period anyway, a lot of this can't be attributed to directly being Gaddafi. Advancements in medicine etc. are to be thanked for most of this, not Gaddafi's "Leadership".
Of course, this report stops before the revolution. The events during the revolution happened under Gaddafi's reign also and so cannot be excluded. My opponent would surely like to exclude it as it is this period of time when Libyan health completely failed under Gaddafi. I have already mentioned that up to 25,000 Libyans died in the war. There were many actions Gaddafi could have taken to end the conflict early e.g. Held diplomatic meetings rather than attack, but he didn't. This shows another flaw under his leadership.
This debate is all about weighing up the pros and cons of Gaddafi. Yes, it is true that things became slightly better after 1970, but you cannot ignore what happened under Gaddafi's reign after 2011's war began. The death of 25,000 and the displacement of 1000s more completely outweighs what happened before that.
Now I would like to talk about literacy. Pro tries to strawman me as someone who believes English is supreme and must be enforced on everyone. I am not saying anyone should be forced to learn English. Gaddafi outlawed English teaching in schools. There is a difference between not enforcing and completely banning. Gaddafi denied the Libyan children their right to learn in schools, and for that reason you cannot say he improved literacy.
Whether anyone likes the English language or not, it is undeniable that (due to US/UK), English is incredibly important in the international community. By banning the teaching of English in schools, Gaddafi is disadvantaging the next generation of Libyans - Libya's future.
The casaulties of Libya's civil war are huge and outweigh what improvement there was, under Gaddafi, health has overall gotten worse. Gaddafi's banning of teaching English is an impingement of freedom and also means that under his rule, Literacy has gotten worse too. This is a net harm.
Terrorism & Idi Amin:
Now I would like to talk about terrorism. Pro tries to justify Gaddafi's military support of the IRA by saying Britain is a bad Imperial Power which has "had their homeland occupied". It is not relevant which side is morally right in that conflict, terrorism is not the way to enforce any belief, right or wrong. Gaddafi's support of the IRA resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians. This is obviously a huge harm. Gaddafi's provisions of arms and ammunition to groups which committed terror have had a net harm on the world.
I would like to bring up a new point: Gaddafi supported Idi Amin, someone who is responsible for the killing of up to 500,000 people. Gaddafi sent Libyan troops in 1972 & 1979 to defend Amin when he was attacked by an opposition. Gaddafi was always a strong supporter of Amin and defended him, resulting in the prolonging of his reign. Gaddafi is indirectly responsible for the deaths of those who died because of Amin because without Gaddafi, Amin's reign would not have lasted as long. Gaddafi's support of Amin has also caused a net harm to the world.
Gaddafi has always been a direct supporter of terror throughout history. He directly supplied the IRA which resulted in many deaths of innocent people. He also supported and defended Amin, which makes him also indirectly responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people. These are huge harms on the world as a result of Gaddafi's rule.
Gaddafi's treatment of Libyans during the war have had a net harm on health. His banning of teaching English has had a net harm on literacy. His support of Terrorist groups such as the IRA and Idi Amin have had a huge net harm on world safety and peace.
Because of this, Gaddafi's leadership has had a net harm on Libya and the World.
Alright final round, I shall give a short rebuttal and my closing statement.
Now Libya's African neihbors being Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Chad.
But as my opponent does point out with the exception of Seychelles, being a handful of islands in the Indian Ocean
with a population of a mere 84,000 Libya under Gaddafhi indeed had the highest HDI in ALL African nations.
I am not saying the Rebels actions being worse then Gaddafhi's make his leadership anybetter or worse, however
it absolutley justifies millitary action.
UN and NATO are you claiming that the are forces that collaborate? NATO is a millitary alliance just like CIS and is not a UN security force by nature but a millitary alliance that was established between nations which have signed the North Antlantic Treaty.
Look at the Treaty yourself:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Why does NATO have the rigth to attack Libyans in a purely Libyan conflict? How does this even remotley involve NATO? NATO believes in the UN but they have no right to attack Gaddafhi and his supporters simply becuase they want the otherside to win.
Furthermore Gaddafhi when addressing the United Nations called for mass reform.
Furthermore do not even try to claim that this is what the people of the world agreed apon and that makes Gaddafhi a bad leader. UN security resolution 1973 the one which was the justification for NATO attacks was passed by the Security Council which as you know is dominated by 5 permenant members whom have the right to Veto any security mesuare they do not like.
Do not claim that this is democracy in any form. China and Russia did not even vote in favour of it but simply abstained.
This was not the 7 billion people of the world deciding democraticly to remove a leader of a foriegn country but a handful of powerful governments voting to put a no-fly zone in affect in Libya.
Ah yes the rebels. When two political or religion factions are armed wars break out. However you must recognize that their were many loyalists who simply lost. I assume since you did not adress it that might makes right.
To finish off this debate on the civil war, "the whole world" comment shall now be adressed.
"We must be prudent. We know what our political line is: We don't support invasions, or massacres, or anything like that no matter who does it. A campaign of lies is being spun together regarding Libya [...] I'm not going to condemn him. I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend."-Hugo Chavez
"Syria affirms its rejection of all forms of foreign interference in Libyan affairs, since that would be a violation of Libya's sovereignty, its independence and the unity of its land,"-Syrian Foriegn ministry
Syria and Venesuala are part of the world. Syria and Venesuala were agianst millitary action agianst Gaddafhi and any intervention on a soley Libyan matter. Thus this claim about the whole world wanting Gaddafhi taken out by millitary intervention is not true.
Health And Literacy
Firstly I am thrilled you affirm Gaddafi did infact benifiet Libya. Remeber even if you say slightly you admit that he has helped more then hurt on this subject.
http://www.who.int... is the full report.
Since you did not respond to my defense of Gaddafhi's traffic handlings then I must assume that you accept them.
Agian you bring up the civil war.
Agian I will counter by saying that all of these casualties cannot be blamed on Gaddafhi. People die in wars and civillians are negativley affected always. However you claim that Gaddafhi did not even try a diplomatic solution. Well then I suppose I can dismantle you entire argument on the matter in one point. http://news.xinhuanet.com... called for internationally supervised elections to end the dispute that would ensure peace and transperancy. The rebels refused Gaddafhi and would rather inflict more deaths while Gaddafhi seeked a peaceful solution. Gaddafhi could not have a peaceful solution becuase these armed rebels would not allow it.
You did not even refute the high literacy rates you just critizied Gaddafhi being agianst teaching English in Libyan schools.
I gave a rebuttal but you simply repeated the exact same point as before. Gaddafhi not teaching a certian language is perhaps
detremential however you cannot possibley claim it refute Gaddafhi's education system as a whole now can you?
Thus Gaddafhi still benifieted the health and literacy of the Libyan People.
It is totally true that Gaddafhi supported Amin and IRA and I will not defend terrorism.
However it was Mummar Al-Gaddafi who had paid compensation for one his own citizens commiting a grave crime agaisnt humanity as I have already said and you have not refuted.
Furthermore you should read the following:
"Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.'s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi's historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya's "excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001."
Gaddafhi dismantled Libyan WMDs and dennounced the Semptember 11th attacks cooperating with the nations of the world fighting terrorism. Gaddafhi supported anti-Imperialist movements across the world, a few of which ended up being terrorist.
However in the end Gaddafhi stood agianst terrorism.
I will end this debate by saying that since my opponent has failed to prove Gaddafhi as a true net loss to mankind that you will vote PRO. However I ask each and everyone of you to look over these arguments carefully, if all of Gaddafhi's accomplishments are outwieghed by Con's claims, vote CON. If they are not outwieghed by Con's claims vote pro. Despite Con's misplaced statements about how to spell Gaddafhi I would like to say that my opponent's spelling and grammar was excellent. Furthermore I would like to thank him for staying through until the very end and not Forfieting. May Gaddafhi smile apon this clash in heaven. Thank you all for reading and voting!
I will sum up the main points of this debate and explain how in each area, Gaddafi's cons outweigh his pros.
My opponent claims that due to the rebels' actions during the revolution, "it absolutley justifies millitary action". This is not true.
In order for Gaddafi's war crimes against the rebels to have a net gain, it has to be proven that the rebels were murdering civilians. Only in this case, would it create a net benefit (in terms of lives) to Libya for Gaddafi to commit these crimes.
However, the rebels were not mistreating civilians. The only people that the rebels killed were the opposing soldiers. Therefore, Gaddafi's war crimes against the rebels does not create a net gain.
Now, again for the sake of argument, let's assume that the rebels were bad people, I have a already explained that people will always prefer a world where they are better off than one where they are not. Because of this, for the rebels to be motivated to launch a revolution, it shows truly how much they despised Gaddafi's rule over Libya. If Gaddafi's rule had a net gain, these rebels would be happy to live they way they were, but the fact that they were driven to revolution is proof that people in Libya knew Gaddafi's leadership was net harmful to them, and that they had to change it.
I would like now talk about the atrocities Gaddafi's forces committed in the war. First, I would like to backtrack to the beginning of the uprising. When the revolution was budding, there were no armed rebels, only ordinary people protesting on the streets. Protesting is a human right. However, Gaddafi ordered his forces to murder these innocent civilians. Even the international community court sought to arrest Gaddafi's officials for crimes against humanity. Gaddafi's forces also committed mass rape against civilians. Gaddafi's forces used land mines in civilian areas which is a huge threat to the lives of ordinary people. Gaddafi also used shelling on civilian homes, causing the deaths of hundreds of Libyan citizens. These war crimes against innocent citizens are clearly a net harm on Libya. Even if my opponent could somehow justify war crimes against the rebels, there is absolutely no reason for Gaddafi's forces to commit crimes against citizens. For this reason, Gaddafi has caused a net harm during the civil war.
My opponent gets a bit sidetracked when he began to talk about the technicalities of NATO and the UN. My point of the UN was that the security resolution was a democratically chosen option since it was a majority decision. It does not matter if there were some countries who did not agree, the point is that the majority of the world knew that Gaddafi had such a big net harm that he had to be removed.
Gaddafi's war crimes against civilians cannot be justified, and for this reason, he has caused a net harm during the war. The majority of the world agreed with this, hence the UN resolution to intervene.
Pro believes that I admitted "Gaddafi did infact benifiet Libya". This is a misinterpretation of what I said. What I stated was that while Gaddafi was in power, things did get slightly better from 1970 - 2009. However, as I have already said, a lot of this cannot be attributed to Gaddafi. Pro has brought up the argument of health improving. Before the war, this was true, but as I had said, health improved all over the world, and this was due to external factors and not Gaddafi.
The improvement of health can be attributed to the advancement of medicine and the improvement of technology. These things are not a result of Gaddafi's leadership, as Gaddafi did not create or make other people create these advancements in medicine or technology.
As I had talked about in the last round, despite the fact that things got better from 1970 - 2009, we have to take into account what happened in the war too as this also happened as a result of Gaddafi. I have explained how the harms to health during the war outweigh what improvement there was previously, if those improvements could even be credited to Gaddafi anyway. The deaths of up to 25,000 and the misplacement of 1000s more are far larger harms that outweigh everything that happened before. Perhaps things got better before 2011, but the Net result is a harm if Gaddafi's actions during the revolutionary war is taken into account. Unfortunately, Pro's source for his point on the war (xinhuanet.com) leads to a 404 error.
What improvement there was after 1970 cannot be credited to Gaddafi, and Gaddafi's actions during the war which resulted in the deaths of thousands has had a net harm on health.
Now onto literacy. Overall, this point doesn't hold much weight anyway. This is because, under any situation, the death of 1000s clearly outweighs people learning to read. That said, I will explain why Gaddafi has had net harms on education anyway.
As I previously stated, Gaddafi had outlawed the teaching of English in schools. I've already explained how this disadvantages the next generation of Libyans as English is such an important language that banning it will have net harms. This is just one example of how Gaddafi tries to control education. Education, the right to learn, should be free, not controlled as Gaddafi has tried to make it. Someone who controls what language people can and cannot learn, instead of letting people choose to learn whichever one they want to (especially the most important one), is a net harm on education.
My opponent himself admitted that "It is totally true that Gaddafhi supported Amin and IRA". But he tries to say that Gaddafi paid compensation for another act of terror.
This is true, however his payment of compensation is completely outweighed by his support of the IRA and Amin.
I have already said that Amin is responsible for the killing of up to 500,000 people. I have also talked about how the IRA are responsible for the deaths of many innocent people.
No amount of money can replace a life, especially not the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that Gaddafi's leadership has definitely contributed to. Gaddafi's sending of soldiers to defend Amin from his opposition is responsible for the prolonging of his reign of terror. Similarly, Gaddafi contributed to the IRA's efforts to commit terror amongst innocent people.
Deaths are probably the biggest harms to the world someone can cause. Gaddafi, due to his constant support of terrorist groups is responsible for many deaths.
The terror that Gaddafi has supported far outweighs the amount of money he has paid out.
Gaddafi's war crimes against civilians during the war are unjustifiable and have caused a net harm.
Gaddafi causing the death of 1000s in the war has caused a net harm to health.
Gaddafi's banning of English is a restriction of educational freedom and has caused a net harm to education.
Gaddafi's support of terrorist groups has caused the deaths of 1000s and is a net harm to the world.
Gaddafi did do some good things, but these are always outweighed by his harms.
The improvement of health after 1970 is not the result of Gaddafi and is due to external factors. This improvement is outweighed by the deaths during the war caused by Gaddafi's troops.
The improvement in literacy is outweighed by the banning of areas of education that Gaddafi didn't like. This impingement on the freedom of learning outweighs the rise in literacy.
Gaddafi's payment of compensation obviously does not outweigh the hundreds of thousands dead due to his terrorism support.
I thank Pro for a very interesting debate.
But if you agree that the deaths of thousands is bad, if you agree that war crimes against civilians is bad and if you agree that the military support of terrorism is bad,
then you will agree with me, you will agree with the UN, and you will agree that Gaddafi's leadership has caused a net harm to Libya and the world.
And you will vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Talib.ul-Ilm 3 years ago
|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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I'm making everything a tie except for convincing arguments. As far as net-gain is concerned, I feel that Pro showed that Gaddafhi's leadership was a net-gain. Though Con did make some good points, to me, I see that the net-gain was good for Libya. However, that doesn't say a whole lot, as I feel that the man himself, being a Muslim, didn't do enough for the cause of God and His religion, Islam.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.