The Instigator
andrewjoseofficial
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
labambah
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

Question of Intervention in Regional Conflicts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
labambah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 248 times Debate No: 91210
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

andrewjoseofficial

Con

In the world, we have been faced with a lot of conflicts in areas around the world. Many of these conflicts have been caused because of interventions by large powers into the affairs of smaller countries. Countries and societies have been destroyed by foreign invaders who entered the nations with the claim of changing societies and bringing reformation. Although there has been great reforms and societal changes, in the long run these societies have lost their culture and have been assimilated into the hands of the invaders. What makes this a concern is that some elements who have the patriotic concerns for their lands, form violent groups instead of using non violent measures. And this affects the world. This is why countries must not intervene in the affairs of other nations.
labambah

Pro

Hello, I'll take a go with this.

Conflicts are much broader and affecting in more areas than it may seem on surface, especially on the time of global economy. Thus the headline that conflicts are regional conflicts does not mean that their effects are limited to specific region. Same has been argumented by US for the Vietnam War, as its effects were not seen regional, but much broader and far affecting.

Also, it is a very old habit to impose influence to other inferior countries. By definition, you are not "powerful" if you do not have any say on global matters. Therefore, in a long run country wants to stay as powerful by imposing rules and changing societies which interferes, or appears to interfere in affairs of powerful country.

Lastly, non-violent channels are usually not an option, as it was seen in WW2 by occupied countries. Back then the "political hemisphere" was dictated by occupation forces, leading to situation where you had no other choice than violently oppose. And, as you already suggested, large powers has nowadays means to impose power threw its influence and economy, but it also has an option to impose rules with occupational force, like in the case of Falklands War.

Intervening is therefore a must; in order to prevent escalation of conflicts and keep "status quo", if it favors the powerful countries.
Debate Round No. 1
andrewjoseofficial

Con

Greed has influenced man to exploit the name of imposing rules and morality, for his personal greed and benefit. Taking the argument of the respected contender, many countries have gone into battle with regional participants and in the end brought more problems to themselves. History showed that some 'civilized' nations wanted to control oil resources more than their want for global peace.
Non Violence has proved itself in many events such as the Reformation of The South African Constitution, the Independence of India. If these great events were solved by non violence then it is impossible for one to say that non violence cannot be used.
Man cannot be a judge. Man has his greed and lust overpowering his mind, and in that mental state he cannot be placed as a judge. Hence no countries should judge situations, conquer other nations, extend hegemony and then occupy its oil or natural reserves.
labambah

Pro

I agree with my opponent on the fact that war never leads to anything greater in a short term, but in a long term it can mean a lot. For this we can review history of United States of America and borders of modern states, especially the anomaly of 21th century: Israel.

War has been said to be part of politics when all other means are depleted. If there is on-going conflict, it is hard to find solution via non-violent means as opponent suggests. Therefor intervenetion is required, in order to pose greater power which two belligerents recognize. This way they can be persuaded to end fighting, shortening the time of conflict and misery coming from war. The threat of war can be preemptive lowered by bringing outside military close by, encouraging non-violent solving.

My opponent is also saying that power corrupts, but is not recognizing that it can very well be the leading factor for conflict in the first place. When there is inhuman behavior, such in the case of Bosnian War, intervention is justified by all means. If man does not act as a judge in the agreed context of international laws, it will enable even greater misery from war and turmoil.
Debate Round No. 2
andrewjoseofficial

Con

andrewjoseofficial forfeited this round.
labambah

Pro

All above.
Debate Round No. 3
andrewjoseofficial

Con

andrewjoseofficial forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
andrewjoseofficial

Con

andrewjoseofficial forfeited this round.
labambah

Pro

Last extend.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
andrewjoseofficiallabambahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro. This used to be good enough, but maybe I should have shown where Con ff. Hopefully someone will report this vote in order that justice will be served.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
andrewjoseofficiallabambahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited