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

Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,181 times Debate No: 88779
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




This is an LD debate, please do not accept if you can't debate LD.

This round will also include DA's, CP's, T shells, and K's, so don't accept either if you don't know what those are.

The second part of round 1 will be the 1AC.

The first part of round 2 will be the first CX time. Max 10 questions, and if you don't agree with that, add in what you feel should be the proper amount of questions at the end of the 1AC.

The second part of round 2 will be the answers to those CX questions.

The first part of round 3 will be the 1NC.

The second part of round 3 will be the CX questions. Again, 10 questions max.

The first part of round 4 will be the answers to those CX questions.

The second part of round 4 will be the 1AR.

The first part of round 5 will be the 2NR.

The second part of round 5 will be the 2AR.

When placing cards, write out the tag and cite as usual, but when placing the actual cards, just type in what you would say if you were in a real LD debate.

If there's any questions, comment.

Good luck to my opponent.


I'm gonna copy the outline for my Affirmative here. It'll be a tish confusing, but I bet that you can follow it.

Value: Pursuit of Happiness/Quality of Life

Criterion: Pragmatism

Thesis: Democratic values should be promoted in the Middle East in order to attempt to fix human rights violations. This promotion will take effect in the following four steps:

1. The U.S. will ask the U.N. for help in the promotion of democracy. If the U.N. doesn"t help, then step 1 will be repeated, or the process will end, seeing as the burden of promotion will be upheld.

2. The combined force will insert itself into the currently running democratic systems in the middle east elections as long as lethal resistance is not present.

3. The insertion will involve the combined force running the elections with the caveat that they will leave should a total of 1/3rd of the voting population requests it.

4. For governments that aren"t democratic, the combined force will simply distribute flyers via airplane, if this is not a dangerous action.

Contention 1: The Middle East has Gross Human Rights Violations, due to Corrupt Governance
The following human rights violations would be fixed if democracy was instituted.

Subpoint A: Child Labor (CIA World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2016)
Meta A: Yemen
23% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 (have to work as child laborers)
1,334,288 (total children)
Meta B: Turkey
3% of children between the ages of 5 and 14
Meta C: Syria
4% of children between the ages of 5 and 14
Meta D: Lebanon
7% of children between the ages of 5 and 14
Meta E: Iraq
11% of children between the ages of 5 and 14
Meta F: Egypt
7% of children between the ages of 5 and 14
Meta G: Bahrain
5% of children between the ages of 5 and 14
Meta H: Total

Subpoint B: Religious Freedom is Legally Prohibited or Discouraged with Lethal Force (U.S. Department of State, DoS Staff, 2013)
Meta A: Yemen
Meta B: United Arab Emirates
Meta C: Saudi Arabia
Meta D: Iraq
Meta E: Iran

Subpoint C: Gender Inequality is High in the Middle East (United Nations Development Program, UNDP Staff, 2015)
Meta A: Yemen
Rank 155 (out of 188 total countries for gender equality)
Meta B: Turkey
Rank 71
Meta C: Syria
Rank 119
Meta D: Jordan
Rank 102
Meta E: Qatar
Rank 116
Meta F: Lebanon
Rank 78
Meta G: Kuwait
Rank 79
Meta H: Iraq
Rank 123
Meta I: Iran
Rank 114
Meta J: Egypt
Rank 131

Contention 2: These Countries are already Democratic, just Corrupt (CIA World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2016)
The countries, being technically democratic, can be changed with a little effort.

Subpoint A: Yemen
Subpoint B: Turkey
Subpoint C: Syria
Subpoint D: Lebanon
Subpoint E: Israel
Subpoint F: Iraq
Subpoint G: Iran
Subpoint H: Egypt

Final Focus: In order to fix these violations, the U.S. and U.N. will take advantage of the current social media outrage and technical democracies.

Two quick questions:
1) Can we check each others sources online?
2) Can we have a total of 5 questions, with the exception of questions meant to clarify defintions or reasoning?
Debate Round No. 1


So, I'll answer my opponent's questions first.

1. I believe if you put in a little bit of the card with the source I provide, you'll be able to check the sources.

2. Sure, a total of five questions. I'll have one clarifying question.

So, first is my clarification question.

Do you defend North Africa as well?

On to my five questions.

1. Where does the plan get funding? If you don"t spec the specific agency, I"ll assume normal means.

2. Can you develop on your plan a little bit more? What exactly are you implementing?

3. Your second contention says they can be changed with little effort. Isn't that democracy assistance, not democracy promotion?

4. Why does democracy insist on happiness, and not morality?

5. What exactly are you trying to solve for?


Clarification Question:
The answer is no. North Africa is part of the Near East, as defined by the U.S. Department of State, not the Middle East.

1) There are many pertinent agencies in the U.N. who would be likely to contribute funding.

a) International Labor Organization
b) International Telecommunication Agency
c) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
d) International Development Association of the World Bank Group
e) World Tourism Organization

There are also a large number of countries in the U.N. concerned with human rights (i.e. every single one except Saudi Arabia)

2) I am attempting to weed out the corruption in the current democracies as well as selling the concept of democracy to other countries. This will create true democracy vs. the current faux democracy.

3) The definition of promote, according to Oxford Dictionaries, is this "further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage:" (verb). In other words, no. This is the promotion of democracy.

4) The goal of governing bodies is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I focus specifically on the pursuit of happiness because it can be restated as quality of life, which contains liberty, and, to some extent, life.

5) I am trying to solve for the numerous human rights violations via the promotion of democracy.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm going to go with a DA, CP, and K.

First off is the NED Funding DA.

Democracy promotion occurs through the NED
Scott and Steele "05 "Assisting democrats or resisting dictators? The nature and impact of democracy support by the United States National Endowment for Democracy, 1990"99"

60 percent of NED's grants are channeled through four institutes. The NED engages to promote democracy.

Additionally, in CX, my opponent only lists agencies in the U.N., not the U.S.

AND, NED worsens democratization efforts " turns case " outweighs on specificity
Scott and Steele "05 "Assisting democrats or resisting dictators? The nature and impact of democracy support by the United States National Endowment for Democracy, 1990"99"

There is no statistically significant relationship between aid and democracy. The relationship between the two variables is negative. Rather than promoting democracy, NED grants seem to be associated with worsening situations.

On to the Brazil CP.

CP Text: The Federative Republic of Brazil should promote good governance in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania.

The Counterplan solves democracy but the Aff doesn"t " a Brazilian campaign for good governance activates global modeling.
Stuenkel, PhD Political Science, "13 "Rising Powers and the Future of Democracy Promotion: the case of Brazil and India,"

Promoting democracy is Brazil's national interest. Liberal "democracy promotion" may be an important step to facilitate cooperation, particularly on the multilateral level. Brazil's societal structures are similar to many countries that are struggling to establish democracy. India and Brazil provide powerful counter-examples that political freedom is no obstacle to economic growth.

AND, U.S. democracy promotion destabilizes the international order and incites perpetual warfare " all democratic progress has occurred in spite of, and not because of America.
Smith 12

Hope to make America secure through the expansion of free-market democracies created the illusion that history could be fundamentally restructured. Progressive imperialism became a "just war". The military was ushering a new dawn of freedom. Publications deepened American self-confidence, arrogance, self-interest, and self-delusion characterized the arguments underlying the "Washington Consensus". Brazil demonstrated the ability of a country outside American hegemony to combine responsible government with social justice. The invasion of Iraq had made it more problematic than would otherwise have moderate forces in favor of democratic government.

On to the Human Rights K.

Human rights discourse sees political victims, not political subjects " this posits the necessity of Western intervention in the form of technical administration that actively subverts revolutionary movements, preserving neocolonial paternalism.
Neocosmos 11

When "political conditionalities" proved insufficient, it was possible to enforce democracy, human rights through military might justified by "humanitarian" intervention. The "transition" is never-ending as the ideal is rarely attained. The theoretical foundation of human rights on which this whole reasoning was constructed, is that people are seen as victims of regimes, and not as collective subjects of their own liberation. The law is understood to be their saviours. Democracy shows how politics has been reduced to a technical process removed from popular control and placed into the hands of experts who staff an industry whose tentacles hold up the liberal global hydra of the new imperial "democratising mission" on the continent. "De-politicisation" as a process: people are convinced that they are incapable. Everyone should return to their place and vacate politics, leaving it to those who know how to follow the rules of the game. This process could be a never-ending "transition" from politics of popular agency to the oppressive technicism of imperial power.

AND, In this colonial relationship, all the difficult questions of decision making need to be left to the professionals " foreign elites reach a consensus ill-disposed to resolve the demands of the revolts " perpetuating the violent cycle of decolonization
Neocosmos 11

This process promises a world in which difficult questions and "decision-making" should be left to professionals. This gives rise to political exclusion. Violence does not disappear with the democratic state. A new oligarchy is formed as a result of the de-politicisation and political exclusion. Authoritarianism is re-created to such an extent that state thinking becomes constructed as "natural". The neocolonial state give rise to a fundamental contradiction between human rights and state nationalism. HRD is not concerned with inclusion as with legal redress. Producing the passivity of victims: It privileges state solutions and reduces all political thought to state subjectivity. Violence in neo-colonial states are a necessary outcome of democracy.

This is a direct turn to my opponent's case. My opponent said in CX that he's trying to solve for numerous human rights violations. This K shows that our focus on human rights is bad.

On to my opponent's case.

I believe contention 1 of my opponent's case is already taken care of.

Contention 2 doesn't have any impacts. There's nothing in the case that says why the corruption in those countries are bad, so don't look to that contention.

I also adopt my opponent's framework.

I've proven that my opponent actually decreases the amount of happiness and life that he's/she's actually trying to achieve. This is a reason you need to vote NEG.


I have a couple of clarifying questions:
a) What does DA stand for?
b) Do you have Contentions?

Now for my actual questions:
1) How does NED actually achieve this "aid"?
2) Isn't Brazil a member of the U.N.?
3) If Brazil is effective, why isn't Ned?
4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your Kritik only apply to the actual running of governments, as opposed to the elections, for which my implementation applies?
5) Wouldn't working with Brazil help NED actually achieve what it attempts to achieve?
Debate Round No. 3


a) DA stands for dis-advantage.
b) You can think of the DA, CP, and my K as contentions.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by this question, but I'll try to clarify the NED Funding DA. Pretty much, democracy promotion in the US is funded by NED, but NED is worsening the situation rather than actually promoting democracy. A lot of aid is going to NED, but NED isn't promoting democracy.
2. Yes, it is, but the topic is the United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East, not the UN.
3. According to Scott and Steele 05, NED's grants are worsening the situation with democracy promotion.
4. Elections are part of the government as well. The Kritik also talks about human rights discourse, not just governments.
5. I don't have an answer to this question. If you have evidence supporting that statement, you can use it in the 1AR.


As brief road map, I'll go over my case first, then I will go over my opponents.

My Case:

Contention 1:
My opponents attacks here are baseless. They point out that people don't actually work to get out of their unjust governance when another country labels them as victims. My implementation takes this into account. The goal is to avoid any and all fighting. There are two things that will happen. A country will have it's elections run for it, until such time as it has lost corruption, or a country will have pamphlets distributed to it via airplane. This allows for people, people who would label themselves as victims, to take control of their government and save themselves. In elections, this is due to no actual liberation taking place, only an opportunity for liberation is put in place. In pamphlet distribution, this allows for people to choose for themselves whether or not they want control. We are not reducing these people to victims of a regime. We are giving them an opportunity to stand up for themselves and take what they need.

Contention 2:
My opponents attacks here fall. I didn't say that the corruption was bad (though it is). I merely pointed out that they were technically democratic. These countries are the countries in which elections would be taken over. This would lead to people removing the corruption themselves, not the U.N.

Opponent's Case:

This actually helps my case. Brazil, being a part of the U.N., will be able to cooperate with the rest of the U.N. with their already effective techniques. In the case of NED, Brazil would be capable of getting NED, an obviously well funded organization, to a state where NED can actually be positive, rather than negative.

As pointed out under "CP", this is actually helps the affirmative.

This point also falls. For details, check "Contention 1"

Cross Exam:
1) My opponent is restating fact.
2) Irrelevant
3) Yes, but why?
4) I've addressed this in "Contention 1".
5) I've addressed this in "CP".

Final Thoughts:
I have two things to point out. The U.S. is still the instigator of this movement. They would be furthering a cause. This means that the burden of promotion is still upheld.
Debate Round No. 4


We're going to go with Contention 1 and the K (since they're pretty much together).
Then the CP.
Then the DA.
Then Contention 2.
Then the Overview and Voters.
Also, thanks to my opponent for a very quick, nice, and fluid debate.

Starting with the Human Rights Debate, my opponent says his implementation takes into account the "victims". However, the fact that my opponent is focusing on human rights is the problem. By talking about human rights, my opponent is seeing these people as "victims". Also, extend the alt, which says we need to leave it to the government. This is the only way to prevent the violent cycle of decolonization. My opponent doesn't attack the alt, so you should vote on the alt already.

If you don't buy that, let's go to the CP. My opponent's only statement on the CP is that Brazil is part of the UN, so it helps his case. However, the resolution is "Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East." My opponent said this was irrelevant in his last speech, which I don't know why. So, my opponent can't defend the UN. The arguments that my opponent made connecting Brazil and NED are NEG arguments, so since I've won the CP and the DA, that's another reason to vote NEG.

I think the DA went with the CP statement.

My opponent's contention 2 doesn't have evidence or offense. Just because they can be changed with little effort doesn't mean we should. He also just lists a few countries as subpoints, but I don't know if it's real or what it means. Either way, it's not a reason to vote AFF.

The way you look at this round is really simple. I won the K, which says my opponent's focus on human rights is bad, and we should leave decisions to the government.

I won the CP, which says Brazil should promote good governance in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. Don't let this be an AFF argument, the AFF can only defend the US, not the UN.

And, I won the DA, which says democracy promotion through NED is bad. My opponent's only offense on that was in the CP argument, which I won.

Today, even if I only won one of these arguments, I still win the debate since I have enough offense, which is why you must negate. Good round.


Road Map:
Contention 1 & K:
Contention 2:
CP & DA:
Voting Issues:

Contention 1& K:
My opponents attacks here don't actually address the fact that I'm making the people liberators. Instead of forcing them to be victims, I am giving them the option to break the cycle or continue it.

Contention 2:
My opponent brought up the old argument "Just because you can does not mean you should." I will counter with this. Just because you can doesn't mean you shouldn't. There is every reason to attempt to fix the issues found in the listed, technically democratic countries.

CP & DA: The crux of the attacks here comes down to one thing. My opponent has argued that I am not actually talking about the U.S., but the U.N. In actuality, I'm doing both. I am saying that the U.S. should channel its promotional powers into the U.N., because the U.N. will help greatly in this promotion. It's like saying that to eat a salad, you should use a fork. It's a common sense measure that still results in you eating the salad.

Voting Issues:
1) I have demonstrated that, by my implementation plan, people who are unhappy will become happy, thereby achieving the goal of today's debate, the pursuit of happiness.
2) My steps are very practical, leading me to take the win on a pragmatic ground.
3) My 1st contention still stands, weathered, but standing.
4) My 2nd contention is basically uncontested.
5) My opponents CP and DA actually assist my case.

I see no other vote than a vote in affirmation.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Grovenshar 2 years ago
Cool, I'll take NEG. You're gonna hate my guts.
Posted by FlamingDog0074 2 years ago
Hey Grovenshar, invite me to a debate some other time today. I had a great debate.
Posted by FlamingDog0074 2 years ago
I'm not sure exactly when, but it's been quite a while. At least for a few years.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Since when are DA's and CP's allowed in LD debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by pianodude2468 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I am only voting on "who made more convincing arguments" because i only judge on the actual debate and am objective. I am personally more of a traditional LD debater and prefer to see extensive framework clash. This debate is terribly hard to judge and not my favorite because I think CON was a little too lost in Policy world and PRO got dragged into it as well. I think PRO was better able to uphold their contentions although I must confess that i think this debate didn't progress much. Con would have had my vote if they could have tied it more clearly back into moral framework. A lot of the attacks CON made were a little out there. Both of you are great debaters though. I liked it when you guys broke away from debate lingo and started talking like people. It made it more humorous, enjoyable, and easy to connect to. Great job. IT was close. If it were policy I think CON would have my vote. (: