The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RyuuKyuzo
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

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...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,645 times Debate No: 25033
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

We would not tolerate a nation that executes Jews, or any other religion. We would tolerate a nation executing people for their ethnicity or their race. Why should we tolerate nations that execute people for being gay?

I propose that countries that execute homosexuals should be invaded by, ideally an international coalition, but if necessary by the United States or which ever country takes up the cause unilaterally and forces them to legalize homosexuality and give them equal rights.

We learned from Hitler's Germany, World War II, and the Holocaust that we can NOT just sit idly by as human rights are violated, especially when specific groups are targeted.

Nobody should ever be killed or even punished just for their sexua orientation. We can't save the whole world at once, so for now we should tolerate nations who use lesser punishments against homosexuality, but those that execute them should we invaded and forced to treat homosexuals equally.
RyuuKyuzo

Con

My opponent's argument is as follows:

1. People are being executed for being gay

2. Being gay should not be something people are executed for

3. Therefore, we should commence a series of military campaigns to put a stop to such executions.

Wile I agree with 1 and 2, 3 is a poor conclusion to come to. This isn't World War II where you basically have only one country committing mass genocide, there's roughly a continent's worth of countries that either state homosexuality as an executable offence, or at least something worthy of a heavy penalty/life in prison (something my opponent is also in opposition to). (1)

This endeavour would require going to war with nearly every country in both Africa and the middle East simultaneously. Even if we take a step back and decide to only invade those countries where homosexuality is explicitly deemed to be worthy of the death sentence, these countries will more then likely still receive military aid from these neighboring countries, meaning going to war with any of these countries for that reason will inevitably result in (at least the equivalent of) going to war with all of them anyway.

This simply isn't feasible. Who would spear-head such an initiative? The U.S.A.? Unlikely. This is a country where same-sex unions are largely unrecognized and same-sex sexual activity has only been nationally legal since 2003 (2).
Perhaps you contend that while Americans don't approve of homosexuality on average, they still would oppose executing homosexuals and would therefore go to war for the cause anyway. This idea would quickly be overshadowed by one word: Money. The U.S. debt is already exceeds its GDP, a large part of that is thanks to the two wars the U.S. is already involved in, Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, these wars have cost the U.S. a total of $1,360,044,700,000 (3). The cost is rising so quickly that this number will most likely be several millions (perhaps tens of millions) of dollars higher by the time you get around to reading this. This is the result of going to war with 2 countries, and you suggest we go to war with roughly 50 more?
It simply won't happen. Not for a cause Americans don't support nor would they have anything to gain, and if America is out, the other super-powers that are only "so-so" on homosexuality will also be out (basically all of Eastern Europe and all of Asia). This leaves you with a rag-tag team of Canada, most of Western Europe, South Africa, Australia and the bulk of South America. Ignoring that very few of these countries actually have legalized gay marriage and would also most likely opt-out without the support of the U.S., Russia or China, these countries simply don't have the militaristic strength to take on roughly 50 countries.

Furthermore, this is something that isn't guaranteed to succeed even if you can get some kind of international military agreement on the issue. Consider how long the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lasted. Even with the might of the (arguably) strongest military force on the planet, we're still talking about over a decade of war; And why has it taken so long? Guerrilla insurgents. The thing is, even if you can somehow take out the combined military might of roughly 50 countries with little more than what Canada, Australia and England bring to the table (and of those three, only Canada actually has gay-marriage. You really want to place your bets on Canada?), if the people of these countries don't agree with you, they will fight you with guerrilla warfare, making actual success virtually impossible.

In conclusion, invading and imposing our views on homosexuality onto these countries (a morally ambiguous initiative already) just isn't feasible. You simply can not force tolerance at the point of a gun. All you will succeed in producing is violence and death -- that is, if you could somehow manage to produce the miracle necessary to even get the idea off the ground on a global scale in the first place. I appreciate and, to an extent, agree with my opponent's position, but the situation is matter of factly too complicated for such a wide-eyed approach (no offence).

I look forward to my opponent's response.



1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://costofwar.com...

Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

Ways to Limit The War

We may be able to avoid war with many of them through negotiations. We could offer to accept it if they changed the penalty from "execution" to "exile" and then accept homosexuals from those countries as refugees. Alternatively since we would only be focusing on countries that execute homosexuals countries could avoid invasion by decreasing their penalties, even to life imprisonment.

Offering to take the homosexuals off of their hands as refugees would also lower these country's moral plea to try and get other countries to help them if we went to war with them. Afterall, if the homosexuals are no longer in their country then they are no longer their problem and they have no good reason to complain.

Not As Big As It Appears

Con suggests we'd be going to war with 50 different countries. As it is there aren't as many countries that actually execute homosexuals.

The list of countries that execute homosexuals is as of 2011:
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com...
Iran
Mauritania
The Republic of Sudan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen

Parts of:
Somalia
Nigeria

Considering It At the Time:
South Sudan-Did not. Currently up to 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Uganda-Did not. Currently up to life imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Iran

We may be able to get nations to cooperate here over the current nuclear controversy.

Mauritania

This nation has another problem. Slavery. Although illegal there is scant evidence that the law is actually being enforced.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sudan

We could get help in taking over Sudan by signing an agreement with the Darfur rebels agreeing to secure their independence and use their plight as another talking point for getting help in invading Sudan.

Saudi Arabia

Oil! Lots of it! And a government run by a Wahaabiist monarch.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
All we have to do is point out the government's support for radical Islam, and appeal to the oil industry promising them even better deals if we overthrow their government. If we can get big oil behind the movement we may even be able to get the industry to fund pro-gay rights campaigns around the world, increasing the chance of getting enough international support for this military campaign.

Yemen

As with Saudi Arabia there's lots of oil here. We can also argue that their government is ineffective against the Al Qaeda rebels in the country and that a new regime must be installed to effectively deal with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Somalia

It's a land of warring factions. All we have to do is appeal to those factions that haven't decided to execute homosexuals and promise them some measure of power and they will help us against the factions that do execute homosexuals.

Nigeria

Nigeria is a federal state in Africa. Homosexuals are sometimes executed in the mostly Muslim northern provinces. There are all kinds of political rivalries in Nigeria based mostly on ethnic and religious lines. We could exploit these rivalries, enlisting the help of southern Nigeria, particular the Igbo people who once attempted to secede and start their own country of Biafra.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafra

Outlook

None of these countries are particularly strong militarily. Even if it was just a coalition of Canada and Western Europe it would likely succeed.
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Rebuttals.

Ways to Limit the War -- Not so fast

My opponent assumes that you can convince these countries to not execute their homosexuals by offering to accept them into our countries. First of all, this argument supports my position, NOT Pro's as it provides an alternative to military force against these nations -- which is what my opponent is trying to justify. Given this, I'm not actually required to argue against this position since it helps Con more than Pro, but I will regardless because it's a win-win scenario for me anyway.
The problem is that these people consider homosexuality to be a sin against God. They don't want homosexuals simply gone, they want them dead or in prison waiting to die. The last thing they would want is to let them go free in a place that accepts them and even encourages them as homosexuals.
They would sooner agree to life imprisonment for homosexuals and that isn't very likely either as none of these countries want to look like they are subservient to America or any other western nation. Consider the modern excuse given by these nations to justify their harsh punishments of homosexuals:

"This treatment of homosexuals may seem barbaric to some, and many apologists have attempted to shift the blame for this hostility towards homosexuality onto "the adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the new Westernized elite." (1)

Clearly, homosexuality is not an issue they are looking for our orders on.


Not as Big As It Appears -- Perhaps Bigger

The "50 countries" number was in response to Pro saying he opposes countries that punish persons for being homosexual (roughly 50 do so extensively) and given that these countries would aid the countries we do invade, even exclusively going to war with the ones that execute homosexuals will eventually result in (at least the equivalent of, even if not on paper) going to war with all of them as I had outlined in my original argument. Something else to consider, many of these countries do have the death penalty for homosexuals, they simply reserve it for "repeat offenders" rather than an initial punishment to better reflect the edicts of their religion:

"In the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is first punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, the death penalty is to be applied.

As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication." (2)

An example of this is one of the countries Pro lists as not actually having the death sentence for homosexuals:

Uganda

Pro claims that homosexuality is not a crime punishable by death in Uganda. This isn't entirely true. While Uganda doesn't kill their homosexuals outright, they will kill repeat "offenders", which isn't actually any better (3). In fact, David Kato, "considered the father of Uganda's gay rights movement", was beaten to death for his activism on January of 2011 (3).

For this reason it is arguable that we must go to war officially with these 50 or so countries, rather than just the few with execution as the initial punishment and deal with the military aid they receive as it comes.

My opponent lists the 5-7 countries that have made homosexuality punishable by death. Going to war with this many countries alone already stands to require 2-3 times the cost of the two wars the U.S. is currently involved in at least, and going to war with these countries over their right to make their own laws (this is what dissenters will paint this as) will eventually result in going to war with all of them anyway. Consider the extent to which Iraq was aided against America. That was over an issue that was specifically against the Iraqi government. Imagine how much more support you could gather from fellow religious fundamentalists.

Pro seems to acknowledge this as he goes on to provide reasons why we may not have to go to war with these countries. This is, once again, in direct contradiction to his position on the debate as pointed out in even the very title of the debate "Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals". My opponent has unwittingly argued for my position yet again as I am arguing that we shouldn't engage in militaristic force against these nations. Up until now I have chosen to argue against military action by providing reasons for why this is simply not feasible on a military level, but I am not limited to this argument and since my opponent has graciously offered another perspective on why military action is not needed I will quote his own argument and use it against him:

"Iran

We may be able to get nations to cooperate here over the current nuclear controversy.

Sudan

We could get help in taking over Sudan by signing an agreement with the Darfur rebels agreeing to secure their independence and use their plight as another talking point for getting help in invading Sudan.


Yemen

As with Saudi Arabia there's lots of oil here. We can also argue that their government is ineffective against the Al Qaeda rebels in the country and that a new regime must be installed to effectively deal with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org......


Nigeria

Nigeria is a federal state in Africa. Homosexuals are sometimes executed in the mostly Muslim northern provinces. There are all kinds of political rivalries in Nigeria based mostly on ethnic and religious lines. We could exploit these rivalries, enlisting the help of southern Nigeria, particular the Igbo people who once attempted to secede and start their own country of Biafra.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafra"

I've excluded Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia as my opponent suggests ways in which we can go to war with them effectively rather than explaining why we may not have to. However, these reasons are largely speculative and so I ask my opponent to provide substantial reasons why this could work rather than merely conjectural reasoning.

In conclusion, military action is still not feasible for the reasons I've given in my original argument and defended here. Also, due to my opponent's argument provided in round 2, I also have the argument that military action may not even be needed in many cases. I thank my opponent for helping my position, but I would much rather have him stick to his own argument in the future. It is now my opponents responsibility to both justify why military action is needed against these countries (despite his arguments otherwise so far) as well as prove such a military victory is even feasible.

I look forward to my opponent's response.





1. http://wikiislam.net...
2. http://wikiislam.net...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

The resolution is "Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals". It does not say how fast we should do it or that we should not give the other nation a chance to change its policy instead of being invaded, so it does not negate my resolution to suggest we may limit the amount of war that must be carried out under this resolution through negotiations.

Nor does it say how quickly we should do this. It may be helpful to conduct a covertly-funded pro-gay rights propaganda campaign worldwide in order to help the military effort when it comes.

One element of this effort could be to educate people in those countries where it is currently a capital offense or even just taboo but where historically before European contact it was tolerated about their own history. That people often accuse the West of "exporting" homosexuality when in fact it is the West that exported homophobia shows people in these countries are largely ignorant of their own history. By shining a light on their histories we could embed pro-gay positions within nationalist movements and cultural revival movements which seek to clean the nation of colonial influence from its past, leading the populations of these countries to see homophobia as an "imported" attitude and that prescribing to that view is to bow down to the historical colonizers.

As Con has pointed out the hostility towards homosexuality comes largely from "the adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the new Westernized elite." A broader campaign in these countries that highlights how "westernized" the elites are, such as a campaign for replacing English, French, or other European languages as the official language of government with a native language, and making it easier for people to do business in traditional formal dress rather than European formal dress. By putting "reviving our culture's historical tolerance for homosexuality" as just one of the many, many cultural restorationist issues we can appeal to people's pride and sense of community to promote gay rights.

With covert aid and funding by pro-gay countries come time for the war to end the execution of homosexuals there would then be large numbers of rebels in these countries who will help us.

The pro-gay coalition may also appeal to various other rebel groups. African countries are famous for ethnic conflicts, these can easily be exploited to help the war effort. Iran also has various ethnic and religious conflicts, particularly with Azerbaijanis, Sunnis, Kurds, Zoroastrians, and Baluchistanis. Even when these groups are traditionally homophobic Realpolitik considerations may lead them to ignore that and support gay rights as a step towards getting international help in achieving independence.

With the help of large numbers of rebel forces it will make the military invasion, and post-war occupation of these countries easier.

Examples

http://aliciabanks.xanga.com...

The Dagara tribe of Burkina Faso calls "gays" "gatekeepers" referring to their link between this world and other worlds. Lesbians are considered "witches".

"They come from the Otherworld, and they keep the gates to the Otherworld. Because, if the gates are shut, this is when earth, Mother earth, will shake. Because it has no more reason to be alive. It will shake itself and we will be in deep trouble. Unless they go out on their yearly symposium, the village cannot be granted another year of life...This constantly reiterated discomfort and hatred for the gay person [in the modern world] is again another indication that every year we might as well be prepared for the apocalyptic moment when the stars start to fall to earth..."

Not only could this particular tribe's sense of tradition be appealed to to recruit them to help us in this war, but their traditional religion holding homosexuals to have a sacred role can be appealed to. Pro-gay countries may encourage prophets who foretell that their government by enacting laws against homosexuality is part of a global conspiracy to "shut the gates" leading to an apocalypse. Burkina Faso does not execute homosexuals, but agitation here and in other places could make it unfeasible for many of the 50 or so countries Con says would join in the war to join in because of fears of fanning of the flames of already-existing tensions within their own populations.

In addition there are about 33 tribes in Africa that traditionally practice lesbian marriage, including the Yoruba of northern Nigeria, a place in the world that has laws executing homosexuals. The pro-gay countries can enlist Yoruba traditionalists to help overthrow the regime there and end the execution of homosexuals.

49 out of 78 African tribes with little contact with Western civilization are known to at least tolerate if not celebrate homosexuality.

RyuuKyuzo

Con

My opponent is merely back-tracking in his latest argument. In round one he clearly states,

"I propose that countries that execute homosexuals should be invaded by, ideally an international coalition, but if necessary by the United States or which ever country takes up the cause unilaterally and forces them to legalize homosexuality and give them equal rights."

"... but those that execute them should be invaded and forced to treat homosexuals equally."

It doesn't say "We should invade them... unless we can first get them to change their minds", it simply says "If they execute homosexuals, invade them". Indeed, the very use of the word "force" at the end of the second quote proves that Pro had nothing other than military invasion and occupation in mind when he wrote his argument. As Pro points out, the resolution does not say we shouldn't negotiate policy with these nations, but on the other hand it also doesn't say we should either -- which is more important. By arguing that we should negotiate with these countries to remove the need for invasion, Pro has changed his position and deviated from his argument outlined in round 1. It's all fine and well to change your position on a topic, but not in the middle of a debate. If pro wants to change his resolution to encompass policy negotiations then he must forfeit this debate and start another one.

My opponent next argues that time is not a factor to his resolution and that we could use homosexual activism and propaganda to remove the need for invasion. This may be true, but once again it goes against Pro's original argument that these countries should be invaded. You can not change OR add-on to your resolution half-way through a debate simply because your original supporting arguments weren't enough to counter my rebuttals. If method 'x' undermines the need for invasion, then it undermines your original resolution as it clearly states "Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals". No other method of solving the problem is mentioned here, therefore any method that is not 'military force' is against Pro's resolution.
I could just have easily opened my argument by stating these alternative methods. Pro has the burden of proof, not me. Pro can't bail on his resolution in favour of an alternative method simply because I didn't bring up that argument first. That's not how this works. All arguments that involve a reason not to invade, whether it be the infeasibility of invasion OR the existence of solutions not involving invasion, are arguments in favour of my position, not Pro's.

Given that Pro's resolution and original argument mentions nothing about the arguments he is now presenting, it is clear that Pro cannot defend his original position and has instead stooped to desperately back-tracking his resolution in order to shoe-horn in these additional methods. If Pro cannot uphold his original resolution and the BOP thereby, then I must ask him to forfeit the debate.

The one 'on-point' argument my opponent makes is that we could take advantage of civil disputes within these nations in order to impose our "homosexual tolerance" ideology. Ignoring how highly unethical exploiting the plight of revolutionaries and escalating civil unrest for our own agenda is, this plan will most likely not work. As Pro points out, these groups aren't fond of homosexuality either. They may feign tolerance to gain our initial military support, but once the job is done they will simply ignore our conditions. After all, what are we going to do? Go to war with them? We needed the help of these guerrillas in the first place to topple the last government. Who will we appeal to now? Besides, the majority of the population of these countries are intolerant of homosexuals. If this new government doesn't give the people what they want then the people are likely to riot and collapse the new government before it even gets started.

This argument also doesn't deal with the problem of initial support. Even though Canada has gay marriage and England and Australia have unregistered cohabitation, they still have nothing to gain from this war. Worse still, they have a lot to lose. Consider this, the combined military expenditure of all three of these countries combined is about 115 billion dollars (1). The United States alone spends more than 15 times that much, and even with such an enormous military budget, the U.S. has still required over a decade of war with countries similar to the ones in question. In total, about 1.36 trillion has been lost on the war (already more than 10x the money these three countries have to spend on war combined) and 6500 U.S. soldiers have died as a result of going to war with these two countries (2), and you want a military force with 1/15 the budget to invade at least 2.5 times as many countries? We simply don't have the money or the man-power. Not even close. Even if we exploit guerrilla factions, that's not enough to cover the difference in expense for invading/occupying even two countries, let alone 5-50. Even if you can make success seem likely, most people will not get behind such needless spending and killing of our own soldiers. Especially when such a thing may take decades to actually work, if ever.

To conclude round 3, invasion is both unlikely and infeasible. There simply isn't the support, nor the money, nor the man-power needed to accomplish such a task. Furthermore, there are alternative methods that make invasion unnecessary such as international negotiations and despite my opponent's claim otherwise, this fact does not support his position whatsoever. To the contrary, it's in direct opposition to his resolution.

I look forward to your response.



1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://icasualties.org...
Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

Without Further Details It Can Fit Into Either Framework


"It doesn't say "We should invade them... unless we can first get them to change their minds", it simply says "If they execute homosexuals, invade them"."


Right, simple and without any details, therefore you can not 100% infer that I mean to invade them right away or that I intend on us invading them tomorrow, ten years from now, or after other methods are chosen to try to get them to toe the line.

Con is reading implications into my argument that were not expressed in the words.


That the Groups We Appeal to Aren't Fond of Homosexuality Either


Some are, and some aren't. For example, I mentioned how in traditional African religion there is sometimes a special place for homosexuals. Furthermore, revolutions are typically launched by all groups with grievances against the established order. That would include homosexuals. The solution is simple, during the war effort covertly arm militant gay and pro-gay groups moreso and in ways that lead them to have a strategic advantage after the regime is defeated, including groups of homosexuals who have had enough and are ready to fight for their freedom. In that case even if they establish an anti-gay regime it will have to deal with armed homosexual militants afterwards. At some point in time they will notice these groups and if a plan is devised by Western governments we could strategically aim that point at a time where there's not much they could do about it, and then they may not believe it is worth the hassle to pass anti-gay laws when it means a continuation of civil war.

A Lot to Lose


All we need is some fictional propaganda showing that these regimes are slowly moving towards ethnic cleansing and that this hate can be blamed at least in part on the initial homophobia. It need not be completely fictional if investigations find real ethnic cleansing, as is likely the case in Sudan. The international alarm and desire to prevent another Holocaust would attract the developed world's attention.

The amount of support would mean that we would indeed have the money and resources, because people would be enthusiastic enough to provide it. People would be willing to go through steep tax increases and even nationalizations and conscription as necessary in order to fulfill the promise of "never again".
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Without Further Details -- Here's Some More Backpedaling

My opponent insists that he does in fact have the right to change and add on to his resolution mid-debate. Ultimately, it will be up to the voters to decide this, but I will give my justification as to why this not the case.

My opponent justifies using non-invasive solutions in his argument because his resolution doesn't state a set time frame for the invasion. This is a non-sequitur. The problem isn't in the vagueness in time frame of the resolution, it's that my opponent is arguing for non-militaristic solutions at all (e.g. international negotiations in lieu of an invasion) when his resolution is clearly predicated on the use of military action. It's not that I'm reading into implication not seen in the resolution, it's that Pro is presenting arguments that have nothing to do with his resolution and in fact undermine it utterly.

Pro has clearly made a mistake in his arguments and instead of admitting to it and moving on, he is trying to both twist the semantics of his resolution and obfuscate his justifications for doing so in order to cover up this mistake.

The Groups We Appeal to Aren't Fond of Homosexuality -- But it doesn't matter Either Way

My opponent offers little more than talking points and hopeful conjecture. It's all too easy to pitch the possibility of whatever scenario you'd like to see happen when it's all up in the air, but it's another thing entirely to have an argument rooted in actual real world statistics with historical examples to support your case. Once again, America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost America 1.361 trillion dollars. The cost has actually risen over 1 billion dollars since this debate started. Keep in mind, the combined military expenditure of Canada, England and Australia (none of which have nay real reason to even commit to these wars other than not being blatantly anti-homosexual) is about 115 billion dollars. If going to war with two countries racks up a cost of 1.361 trillion, then the cost of going to war with no more than the 5 countries that have explicitly outlined homosexuality as a crime worth of the death sentence will still theoretically cost 3.4 trillion dollars -- and that's a modest estimate. In all likelihood it will cost much, much more.

This is a cost almost 30x higher than the combined annual military expenditures of these nations. All the guerrilla armies on the planet wouldn't be enough to cover the difference in cost, let alone the few in Africa and the Middle East that would actually help you. This cost alone is already more than enough to convince what few countries you could get to support this idea to back off instantaneously. Even if everything in my opponent's conjecture worked out, that is, he convinced these few nations to join the war effort and got every single guerrilla army in Africa and the Middle East to support his cause, that would never happen, but let's just say it does, he's still guaranteed to go bankrupt and fail in his mission.

Pro's argument here sounds nice in theory, but as soon as you try to connect his proposed solution it to the real world in any way whatsoever, the massive problems that would arise from this idea become obnoxiously and undeniably apparent.


A Lot to Lose -- More than You Understand

My opponent is now suggesting that we blatantly lie on an international scale in order to instigate the single largest war since WWII. I don't think my opponent understands the implication of what he's saying. If this false propaganda works and WWIII begins and his lies are later found out (and they will be), he will be charged as a war criminal and will most likely go down in history as the worst war criminal since Hitler himself. This is nothing short of astonishing hypocrisy. In order to get his way, my opponent is not only advocating the instigation of WWIII, but he advocates that we instigate it via lies and propaganda. Such things are equally as unethical, if not more so than merely killing people with lifestyles you disagree with. While I agree that the mistreatment of these homosexuals is appalling, appropriating an inscrutably massive war via shameless propaganda and perjury is simply not a good answer. It's not even an answer period as the result is worse than the current state of affairs anyway.

Furthermore, tragedies and oppression go on all over the world continuously without much outrage from the developed world. As it turns out, if there isn't anything in it for the invading country, they most likely will not invade regardless of how well constructed your proposed lies and propaganda are.


Conclusion

My opponent's arguments rests upon numerous unlikelyhoods to so much as seem feasible, let alone actually make it to the level of feasibility. He requires international gullibility to the extent that he can both convince the international community of his blatant lies and exaggerations as well as convince them to enter a massive war when there's really nothing in it for them. His argument also depends on the loyalty and proficiency of virtually every guerrilla army available and even then his plan only stands a chance of getting off the ground, let alone actually succeed, if he can find a way to keep the 50 other countries that would likely assist these 5 from assisting them.

There are simply too many "if"s in my opponent's argument for it to have any kind of legitimacy and for that reason my opponent's resolution is negated.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Given that Pro has forfeited the final round, he has forfeited the debate. My arguments stand.

However, I went through the effort of preemptively writing my closing arguments so I'll post them anyway. If my arguments have already convinced you to vote for me, then vote away. If you're still on the fence, then feel free to read my following arguments:

1.

I've already made my arguments as to why my opponent can't argue for non-militaristic solutions when his resolution is predicated on a militaristic solution and I see no reason to reiterate myself, so I'll just copy&paste the following two quotes and leave it up to the voters to decide if the argument presented supports or contradicts the resolution;

Resolution: Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

Pro's Argument: "We may be able to avoid war with many of them through negotiations."

The question is, does this argument support this resolution? If yes, then my opponent has an argument. Granted, it's an argument that he hasn't actually backed with anything other than his insistence that it can be done, but he would have an argument nonetheless. If this argument does not support the resolution, then my opponent has argued against himself and therefore argued for my position.
One more;

Resolution: Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

Pro's Argument: One element of this effort could be to educate people in those countries where it is currently a capital

offense or even just taboo but where historically before European contact it was tolerated about their own history.
Ignoring the fact that my opponent has not sourced this claim and therefore may very well have just made it up, does it support the resolution? That is, does removing the need for military force by convincing these people that they actually do tolerate homosexuality (somehow) support the claim that military force should be used to make homosexual tolerance compulsory in these countries? Is so, then my opponent has an argument to the extent that he had an argument in the example above. If not, then Pro has defeated his own position.

2.

My opponent's argument has 4 parts to it. Keep in mind Pro's resolution when reading these.

1. We can negotiate with these countries to avoid the need for military force

2. We can convince them that they actually do tolerate homosexuality to remove the need for military force

3. We can exploit and escalate ethnic conflicts within Africa and the Middle East to our advantage in a war

4. We can lie and exaggerate atrocities committed in Africa and the Middle East to illicit outrage in the international community in order to gain militaristic support

Up to this point I have argued and shown that points 1 and 2 contradict Pro's resolution, but there's a larger problem here. Not so much as a single one of these arguments fulfil Pro's burden of proof. That is, none of these arguments explain or justify exactly why nations should use militaristic force against countries that execute homosexuals. 1 and 2 offer alternative solutions to military force and 3 and 4 attempt to explain how we could effectively use military force, but none of them justify why we should.

The closest my opponent comes to answering the "should" question is, ironically, in round one where he says "We would not tolerate a nation that executes Jews, or any other religion. We would(n't) tolerate a nation executing people for their ethnicity or their race. Why should we tolerate nations that execute people for being gay?" -- Here my opponent claims that it is hypocritical to oppose oppression of Jews without opposing the oppression of homosexuals. While this may be true, the use of military action in one example of oppression does not justify the use of military action in all examples of oppression and so my opponent's argument requires further development. Since my opponent has squandered his opportunities to do so in favour of arguing against the infeasibility of war, he has failed to fulfil his BOP.

My opponent has made a fatal error by assuming all he needed to do was argue against my points. I can argue that military force is not what we should do by pointing out the infeasibility of such a war as if the success or even actualization of such a war is shown to be impossible then I've shown that military force is not what we should do, even if we can ethically justify it. However, my opponent needs to both argue for its feasibility and show that it is in fact what we should do a priori. Without so much as attempting to offer justification as to why we should invade these countries, it is completely irrelevant whether such a war is feasible. The resolution is that, "nations should act with military force against countries that execute homosexuals". Therefore, my opponent must justify why we should do such a thing before arguing that we could do such a thing, while all I have to do is debunk Pro's argument for either one. Pro had the BOP and was therefore required to both defend his position and refute my points. Not attempting the former and failing to do the latter simply doesn't cut it.

Conclusion
Given that my opponent has failed to so much as attempt to fulfil his BOP and worse yet has argued against his own resolution, it is clear that his case has not been proven and therefore he has lost this debate.

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate and urge the voters to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 5 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Somebody vote already, the suspense is killing me =p
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 5 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
I made an error in sourcing. The source for Uganda killing repeat offenders is link number 4, not 3.
Posted by MasturDbtor 5 years ago
MasturDbtor
I meant would NOT tolerate in that second sentence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
MasturDbtorRyuuKyuzoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a gigantic BOP to fill and he didnt even come close to filling it. The sheer number of countries on that list alone is enough to defeat the resolution, and the pro provided that list himself. Hell con could have argued that overtime these practices would be discontinued and he would have won the debate right there. Still, his arguments were superior, Pro FF the final round so he loses conduct, sources and grammar tied