Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in intervening in the intern
I'd like to thank Mray56 for accepting this debate against me. The full resolution is Resolved: On balance, the United States federal government is justified in intervening in the internal political process of another nation, in an attempt to stop human rights abuses. Before we get going let me lay out some rules.
Semantics is premitted to a reasonable exent.
Try to keep swearing to a minimum.
1st round is acceptance and definitions by con and Pro will start his arguments.
Rounds 2: Contentions and rebuttles
Round 3: Rebuttles (pro will do Rebuttles and his conclusion)
Round 4: Con Rebuttles and concludes and Pro will type No argument as agreed upon.
If any other phrase or word is typed in that last round by Pro then he shall Forfeit all 7 points.
On balance: Taking everything into consideration; all in all.
Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
Intervene: To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.
Politics: The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government.
Nation: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
Human rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression.
Abuses:An unjust or wrongful practice:a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
Thanks to my opponent for the debate. I wish him the best of luck.
First, we need to establish a basis of what human rights is and what other governments perceive as the definition. Of course, this will go largely with the decision making on whether or not to intervene and possibly use military force to rid of the regime.
My argument will consists of government intervention within a certain extent for governments that commit human rights violations on their people and militarily aggressive governments that are willing to kill their own people in spite of peaceful opposition protest. It is simply not fair for a political organization to impose human rights violations to fit their own beliefs or ideology.Human rights abuses are considered to be cruel and inhumane.
The UN plays an immense role in fighting for human rights. The UN consists of 192 countries with the US as one of the top 5 security council members. On 10 December, 1948 the United Nations General assembly had adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was put in place after World War 2 to vow never to allow atrocities like the killing of 11 million Jews because of the ideology of a dictator. This adoption was meant to expose the current conditions some countries had on human rights violations and tried to bring notice by creating a universal declaration. As human rights activist articulates, this declaration, seems more of a dream then reality as more and more cases of human rights violation arise. Violating Human Rights is considered to be against international law.
Amnesty International’s 2009 World Report and other sources show that individuals are: Tortured or abused in at least 81 countries, individuals who face unfair trials are in at least 54 countries, Those who are restricted in their freedom of expression in at least 77 countries. This number is only growing as countries sit and not participate in redeeming human rights.
There are several ways our government can provide in the role of preserving human rights. Tough economic sanctions can be placed on certain government regimes that abuses human rights. Military actions won’t be necessary until a governments human rights violations come to certain extent like that of Hitlers regime. Human rights violations are against international law and should be treated as so, utilizing all opportunities we have to enforce strict consequence, not only the US but other nations as well. In the fight to preserve Human Rights and world peace.
Universal Declaration of Human rights: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Contention 1: The Theory of is.
Because of the wording of the resolution and where is is placed all I have to do is point out one event where the US wasn't justified. The resolution states the US is justified, not was. Thus meaning that the US hasn't done anything wrong yet.
Contention 2: The United States has done more harm then good when intervening with other nations.
In Chile, the United States wanted a more American supportive government and they intervened in the 1970's, but it only turns out that after the assassination the nation's new leader is anti-American and commits great atrocities of which weren't happening before the US intervened and caused a coup to get rid of the old government in Chile. (https://www.cia.gov...)
The US intervened here to in order to eliminate an Islamist regime in order to install a western friendly government and it came out even worse. The current government restricts water rights which are key to these people and the reason that we don't hear about it in America is because the United States doesn't want to admit their own failure! (http://spectator.org...)
Many people argue that we've gone into Iraq and done great for their government, but the truth is that we went in their for oil and in Pakistan and Afghanistan the United States discovered a REM (rare earth metal) deposit and decided to exploit it! (http://whowhatwhy.com...)
Heck the CIA has even created Al-Qaeda and given them $3 billion dollar to fight against the USSR.(http://www.theinsider.org...) and (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)
Contention 3: The United Nations
My opponent for some reason has brought up the United Nations. I'd like to remind him that this debate is about the US not the United Nations. The United Nations has also failed significantly to uphold the resolution as well. The United Nations has failed to intervene in other nations as they have failed to defuse both the Syrian and the Iranian Crisis. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com...)
Contention 4: Sovereignty is more important
One of the United Nations Core policies is to respect other nation's sovereignty. (http://www.un.org...) A nation's sovereignty is extremely important. Noam Chomsky nailed the topic of isolation with this quote, "Israel is following policies which maximise its security threats... policies which choose expansion over security... policies which lead to their moral degradation, their isolation, their delegitimation, as they call it now, and very likely ultimate destruction. That's not impossible."
As you see Noam Chomsky, who is a political commentator and a philosopher, has showed that intervention can cause a nation to lose it's morals and what the nation stands for.
Contention 5: Civil War Means Progress
Let me give you another quote here. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," Thomas Jefferson. When nation's don't intervene in another nation's Civil War great progress can occur. Let me give the example of the American Civil War. This war was fought to preserve the Union of the United States of America. When the war ended Slavery was abolished, blacks received Civil Rights (like the right to vote and become citizens), and Democracy was still in existence and the United States is currently the 12th freest nation in the world. (http://www.heritage.org...)
Or how about France? The nation of France went through countless Civil Wars and the France is now one of the world's greatest democracies. France is ranked 16th, just one place behind the United States as of last year. (http://democracyranking.org...)
The US involvement in the 1973 coup consisted of knowledgment of the military coup and $35,000 given to the group that botched Allendes capture. If you want to call this intervening then fine. The CIA however, did not anticipate Augusto Pinochets regime. This, of course, is eligible to happen and is hard to predict when you are trying to stop another violation of human rights regime.
There is no evidence regarding the US involvement of an Islamist regime overthrow. Not even the source you provided. There isn’t even evidence that a radical Islamist regime existed in that government. We do know that following their independence after the dissolvement of USSR they became a sectarian nation but not one of a radical islamist.
We entered Iraq for various reasons. There is absolutely no evidence or even empirical evidence that suggests we entered Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for REM. This is not only completely false information but unrelated to this debate. Fact is, we entered Iraq and overthrew a ruthless regime that involved the deaths of hundreds of thousands of kurdish Muslims slaughtered by Saddam Huessein. The Iraq war lasted 10 years involving 30 countries. We established a stable government and a leader that was in favor of human rights. Now the conspiracy theories of both Iraq and Afghanistan war can be discussed on another debate. This is about intervening to stop human rights abuses.
The US is a member of the UN security council. If the UN is involved, then the US is involved. The UN is involved in the Syria conflict. http://www.un.org...
“One of the United Nations Core policies is to respect other nation's sovereignty. A nation's sovereignty is extremely important. Noam Chomsky nailed the topic of isolation with this quote, "Israel is following policies which maximize its security threats... policies which choose expansion over security... policies which lead to their moral degradation, their isolation, their delegitimation, as they call it now, and very likely ultimate destruction. That's not impossible."
This is what is quoted from the General Assembly document. “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”. Now there are many ways to define sovereignty. Sovereignty is usualy defined as a rightful status or independence. Yes, we should respect other nations sovereignty but that doesn’t justify other nations to commit violations of human rights. As stated but the UN. Human rights violations are against international law and intervention is justified.
Civil wars will happen. But this is the problem of the occurring country not the US. Civil Wars are not violations of human rights unless there are violations whithin these wars like we see in Syria or Libya. The Syria civil war is still happening but the result of US intervention in Libya created more peace. A new government appeared to be taking steps towards reconciliation. Let me remind, the US is not the only country involved in these two civil wars.
Contention 1: Contention of is
My oppoenent has dropped this contention. Remember now that my opponent has dropped this contention all I have to do is prove 1 incident were the US was not justified which would disprove the resolution. The Resolution is that the US is justified not was. Is means something is current and completely true to this day. Was means it happend in the past and in this case has been disprooven.
Contention 2: US failed in many involvments
My opponent does not call this an involvement, but let me give you an unclassified CIA document to pounder this thought with. President Nixon ordered the CIA to, "Make the Chilean economy scream and to promote a coup to block President Allende's ascention into power." They did not offer $35,000 they offered $10 million and even more. President Nixon acknowledged that he had a 1 in 10 chance of saving Chile, but took it any ways. (http://www2.gwu.edu...) <--Doc, what the doc says, second to the bottom.--->(http://www2.gwu.edu...) President Allendes was elected peacefully, but since he was a Marxist the US wanted him gone.
I'm sorry I gave you the wrong link. I was refurring to the Tulip Revolt of 2005. The Revolt saw a lot of US involvement and increased pressence in that nation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The link from last round is showing you that the US is attempting to back off of the 2010 Revolt in the country, because they didn't see it in their nation's best interest's. Heck even Moscow turned them down.
According to the Book, America's 'War on Terrorism', by Michel Chossudovsky, upon invasion upon Afghanistan we have found that they countrol over $1 trillion worth of REMs, 90% of the world's Opium, and grade 4 Heroin. "War on terrorism [will be transformed] into a colonial policy of influencing a fabulously wealthy country." They have found that the War on Terror will be funded from the resources coming from Afghanistan. NATO has even set that policy. (http://www.globalresearch.ca...)
My opponent has also said that we fixed Iraq, but with the ISIS there can we really believe that we left Iraq better off than we found it?
Contention 3: United Nations
The UN is involved in the Syria conflict, but they really haven't been able to do anything due to Russia and China preventing any kind of intervention. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com...) Though the US is involved in the UN. The Resolution is the United States federal government is justified, not the United Nations is justified. This is a violation of the Resolution and is an invalid point brought up by Pro. Do not let it pass through.
Contention 4: Sovergnty
The ideals behind a nation's soverngty is that they are suppose to prosper and figure life out on their own. A nation's progress is suppose to come from it's expierences. Have you ever done so stupid like stick your hand of the stove while it was on? How are you suppose to know the oven won't burn you if you've never been burned. That is what these nations must figure out on their own.
Contention 5: Civil War Means Progress
Let me remind you of Benghazi. The United States Embassy was attacked and several Americans were killed in Benghazi. ( http://en.wikipedia.org...) Libya is still in peril as it is now corrupt as politicans are being killed and go missing. (http://www.reuters.com...) Crime rate in Libya is up 500% in the past two years after the Civil War had ended. (http://www.libyaherald.com...)
“My opponent has dropped this contention. Remember now that my opponent has dropped this contention all I have to do is prove 1 incident were the US was not justified which would disprove the resolution.”
This could have indeed been a government intervention but this is unrelated to the topic. IF the US was actually involved in this coup, it would have been for more political reasons not human rights abuses. Salvador Allende was not know for human rights abuses. This should be off the table.
There is still absolutely no evidence that the US was involved in this ‘revolt’. Not even a shred of evidence. Again, not even in that link you posted. Zero, zip, none. Frankly, I didn’t even know about the tulip revolt until this debate. The US was involved in two wars at the time. Now, George W Bush gave a speech during his inaugural address and sparked some provoking to revolt. But that’s nothing near government involvement.
I object that my opponent is turning away from the topic of this debate to argue the conspiracy theories of these two wars.Again, this is unrelated to the discussion. Fact: we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Fact: We entered Afganistan to combat Islam terrorism and find Osama Bin Laden(took us 10 years but we accomplished our mission)Both reasons we entered these countries were partly of human rights violations. Conspiracy theory: We went for REMs and oil. You’re saying we went into both of these countries and didn’t overthrow Saddam and kill Osama Bin Laden? Therefore, these are theories.
“Let me remind you of Benghazi. The United States Embassy was attacked and several Americans were killed in Benghazi.”
This was post intervention. This could have easily been prevented if our secretary of state were actually doing her job. This resulted in poor leadership. After capturing the man behind these attacks, he had said they conducted the attacks because of an anti-Muslim American video not because of the 2011 intervention. http://talkingpointsmemo.com....
The US has and always will be justified in the intervention of the political processes of another nation if human rights violations were commited to a certain extent. Human rights violations are against international law which is backed by the UN. The UN has vowed to disrupt and preserve human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human rights. The US, being one of the top 5 security council members, has taken that vow. Throughout history, we see human rights violations continue on a daily basis. If we don’t disrupt these actions then it will continue to spread. The US can impose tough economic sanctions or military intervention. Whatever is best for our national security interest. Now, like I have stated, the US should only intervene if we are economically and militarily capable. Not risking anything for our national security. Of course, intervention should always come at the peoples permission.
My opponent has not given any sufficient sources to indicate the US was not justified intervention for human rights abuses. Chile should be off the table considering the CIA secretly intervened for our nations imperialistic state; it had nothing to do with human rights violations. There are no evidence regarding the US involvement in the 2005 Tulip Revolt. Absolutely none. And lastly, my opponent had stated conspiracy theories to go along the middle east wars. I have presented my arguments backed with facts and evidence that give us justification.
Contention 1: Contention of is
My oppoenent agrees with me that I have to find an incident where the US was not justified.
Conention 2: US Intervention Fails
Let me remind you here that our topic is Resolved: On balance, the United States federal government is justified in intervening in the internal political process of another nation, in an attempt to stop human rights abuses.It doesn't matter if it is a US invasion or a CIA opperation. Secondly the US was not justified what-so-ever in intervening in Chile since all it was was a just political election.
The US military is involved in Kyrgyzstan. What more proof do you want? I have provided the links and evidense.
It doesn't matter what you call them. I have brought up evidense and have sourced them to defend my point. We are in the Middle East not to stop Terrorism, but to simply make a profit from REMs. Do you ever wounder why they have such great minerals like REMs, 90% of the world's Opium, and crude oil yet their GDP is only $12 billion? (http://www.globalresearch.ca...) So please extend this point across.
Contention 3: United Nations
My opponent has dropped this Contention and since it was the main frame of his argument in the 1st round he has no valid argument remaining. Please Extend this across.
Contention 4: Sovergnty
My opponent has also dropped this argument and it is very key for this debate. Please extend this contention across.
Contention 5: Civil War
My opponent has dropped the increased crime and corruptness that has occured in Libya due to Intervention. Please extend these key points across as well as my argument about how Civil War improves a nation internally.
In conclusion we can see that the US is not justified as I has proved in Contention 2. My opponent has also dropped Contentions 3 and 4 which are the basis of his main argument so I can see no further conclusion to vote Con.
Thank you and please vote Con.
No argument as agreed upon
Thanks to my opponent for the debate.
|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|