The Instigator
FlamingDog0074
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BGordon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 88842
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

FlamingDog0074

Con

If you've already gone against me, don't accept this challenge.

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 5 questions, not including clarification 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, 5 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.
BGordon

Pro

"Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Because I agree with this statement from Abraham Lincoln, I must affirm the following, RESOLVED: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East. As a brief resolution analysis, the resolution specifically states "promote" democracy, and not that it is required or forced upon the Middle East.

Definitions are key to today"s debate, so I shall provide the following definitions.
Ought: moral obligation (Merriam Webster)
Promote: support or actively encourage (New Oxford American Dictionary)
Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

Value: The highest value for today"s debate is civil liberties. Civil liberties guarantee the protection of persons, opinions, ideas, and property from arbitrary government interference. Civil liberties is the most important value in today's debate as freedom provides the base for all other fundamentals and allows a society to progress in an unrestrained manner that is free from oppression and discrimination.

Criterion: The criterion for achieving civil liberties is liberalism. Liberalism was developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a doctrine which emphasized the development of the individual free from the restraints of government. In the twentieth century this view changed to one which looks to the government to step in and correct wrongs and abuses. Liberalism looks to change society for the better and correct the mistakes or errors that have been made by society running an unregulated course.

CONTENTION 1: The US promoting democracy will allow for civil liberties to be furthered in the Middle East.

The Middle East has a long history of restricting civil liberties within society, specifically based on gender. According to "The Week" on Feb. 4, 2016, Saudi Arabia bans women from interacting with men, wearing clothes that "show off beauty", or even go anywhere without a chaperone. The restrictions on freedom go far beyond this though. Politically, the people are restricted. Iran is lead by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not chosen fairly by the people; Oman is lead by a self-appointed dictator. Dictators, kings, and "Supreme Leaders" restrict political freedoms of the people.

The United States promoting democracy in the Middle East will correct these wrongs via liberalism. Societies in the Middle East have veered off what humanity should be, and it is the United States job to help get them back on track. Promoting democracy is the first step, as it will allow the people to have a say in their government. It will promote women's rights to voting and much more. It will put the Middle East back on the moral path to prosperity.

CONTENTION 2: Promoting democracy is the liberalistic obligation of the United States.

The United States is a country built on the foundation of rights to all men in all aspects: property, free speech, and ability to vote. The United States has a obligation to support this to those in the Middle East trying to achieve the same within their nation. We must stand solid in supporting what we were solidly built on. This is our liberalistic obligation to correct the wrongs in the Middle East via supporting democratic transitions that give the power back to the people.

(I know it is short, but I was restricted on time and trying to multitask. It is more logic built than evidence and short, simple ideas)
Debate Round No. 1
FlamingDog0074

Con

1. Do you defend North Africa as well?

2. Where does the plan get funding? If you don't specify the specific agency, I'll just assume normal means.

3. Would by promoting democracy through this way hurt any relations with countries in the Middle East with the US?

4. Why should we only promote democracy in the Middle East, if your logic in Contention 1 and 2 is correct?

5. Is there a specific way you're promoting democracy? Ex. Schools, Disengagement?
BGordon

Pro

1. While democracy ought to be promoted worldwide, however in today's debate, we are addressing the Middle East, which does not include North Africa.

2. No funding is required to "promote" anything. However it will be the responsibility of the President and the State Department to maintain the support of democracy in the Middle East.

3. No, it will not hurt relations with Middle Eastern nations, as the United States is not militarily requiring democratic leaders, but rather promoting democracy.

4. We should promote democracy worldwide in order to further civil liberties everywhere. Contentions 1 and 2 address the Middle East as that is what we are debating.

5. Promoting democracy includes verbally supporting democracy movements and leaders, providing more foreign aid in democratic nations, and encouraging foreign investment in these democratic nations.
Debate Round No. 2
FlamingDog0074

Con

I'll read two DA's, and a CP.

First is the Saudi Relations DA.

A] Uniqueness: US-Saudi relations strong now
Sputnik News 16 http://sputniknews.com...

We have as solid a relationship with Saudi Arabia. The two countries cooperate in energy and security. Saudi Arabia is major oil exporter to the US.

B] Link: Democracy promotion undermines relations
Hassan 15 http://www.tandfonline.com...

Nowhere is this conflict of interest more pronounced than with Saudi Arabia. US profess a desire for democracy whilst Saudi Arabia is "pushing back". The US have continued to prioritize security over democracy. As a result, there is little immediate tension between policy and Saudi Arabia.

C] Impact: Saudi Arabian backlash turns the case
Hassan 15 http://www.tandfonline.com...

Emphasis on democratization is significant with Saudi Arabia"s ability to counter democracy promotion. Saudi Arabia"s willingness to support Egypt can undercut efforts. Saudi ability to undercut US economic leverage is a direct challenge to the democracy promotion agenda.

US-Saudi relations key to prevent terrorism
Hassan 15 http://www.tandfonline.com...

Saudi Arabia is an ally and trading partner of the US and a strong partner in security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military and financial cooperation.

Terrorism leads to violent foreign military intervention " empirically proven by 9/11. Nuclear retaliation will ensue - extinction.
Wright 07 http://select.nytimes.com...

We reacted to 9/11 by invading countries, creating more terrorists. With terrorists growing " amid evolving nukes " we could see terrorism on a scale that would make us forget any restraint. Armed with nukes, they would revive the nuclear Armageddon scenario, the planetary death spiral.

On to the Russia DA.

Russia uses military, economic, and energy threats to counter US democracy promotion efforts " leads to conflicts like Ukraine
Babayan 15 "The return of the empire? Russia's counteraction to transatlantic democracy promotion in its near abroad"

Russia is prone to counteract US when faced with democracy promotion. Energy is the main pressure point. Russia threatened to increase gas prices by 60%. Russia increased arms export. This served as a clear warning. Russia has contributed to the stagnation of democratization. Russia has also strived to maintain the status quo.

The impact is also intervention, military threats, and trade wars
Babayan 15 "The return of the empire? Russia's counteraction to transatlantic democracy promotion in its near abroad"

Counteraction to democracy promotion is a byproduct of Russia protecting its strategic interests. Military interests are emphasized. Russia countered democracy promotion in the post-Soviet space. It engaged in trade wars, admitted Russian pressure and threats of "asymmetric measures" in response to Western sanctions.

Let's go to the Stable Promotion CP.

Text: the United States Federal Government should focus democracy promotion efforts on countries which are sufficiently stable and feature pro-democratic reform coalitions that can be empowered by democratic conditionality and assistance and assist target states in reducing their asymmetric interdependence on illiberal regional powers.

CP resolves problems with democratization " builds credibility
B"rzel "15 "The noble west and the dirty rest? Western democracy promoters and illiberal regional powers"
Illiberal powers seek to countervail Western democracy promotion to protect their economic, geostrategic, or political interests. This democratization-stability dilemma undermines the effectiveness of Western democracy promotion. Democratic processes are not promoted by Western powers but mostly endogenously driven. The more unstable a target state is and the less democratic, the more difficult it will be to reconcile the protection and promotion of human rights and democracy with ensuring security and stability. Democracy promotion should focus on countries like Tunisia, which are sufficiently stable and feature pro-democratic reform coalitions that can be empowered by democratic conditionality and assistance. Rather than blaming their failure to support democracy on illiberal powers, they should develop strategies to balance their different foreign policy goals.

Because the aff is promoting democracy in the Middle East, a non-stable area, I would win this debate since I am promoting democracy and civil liberties in a more suited place. This directly turns my opponent's case since he's trying to promote civil liberties. I solve better than the aff.
BGordon

Pro

CX Questions:

1. You speak a lot about Saudi Arabia. Which is more important: the US promoting democracy and women's rights in the Middle East or the current unstable relations? (source: http://www.goupstate.com...)

2. Hasn't democracy prevented terrorism in the past, such as the American Sons of Liberty transition to the peaceful democracy we know as the United States?

3. How is Russia even relevant in this debate about the Middle East, especially considering you only talk of economic sanctions, not democracy related?

4. Your CP talks about promoting democracy on stable nations only. Would Saudi Arabia be considered "stable", which is contrary to your case, and thus meaning that your D contradicts your CP?

5. You say that the Middle East is non-stable. Isn't a process to a stable, anti-terrorism area preferable?
Debate Round No. 3
FlamingDog0074

Con

1. The current unstable relations. The US-Saudi relationship is necessary to prevent terrorism. If we allow terrorism, it will result in extinction.

2. Democracy promotion for the Middle East is different than the Americans Sons of Liberty example.

3. Russia doesn't like the US promoting democracy in different areas of the world, so Russia will retaliate.

4. If you can prove that Saudi Arabia is considered stable, then yes, my DA contradicts my CP. However, I can just kick out of the CP.

5. Yes, that's the CP. I'm saying the Middle East isn't stable.
BGordon

Pro

BGordon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
FlamingDog0074

Con

Well, default neg because my opponent forfeited.
BGordon

Pro

I will be refuting the CON's points first and then address and strengthen my own case.

CON starts off by stating the the US and Saudi relations will be damaged if we promote democracy. We must realize that current relations with the Saudis are shaky already (http://www.goupstate.com...). Promoting democracy is the least we can do to help stabilize and strengthen relations with the Saudis. The United States ought to help out those suffering under oppression from the current Saudi rule. This is our liberalistic obligation to help out the women and girls in Saudi Arabia who are being restricted our their civil liberties.

CON also states that current relations with the Sauds help fight terrorism. We can see that democracy more effectively fight terrorism. The World Food Prize reported in 2015 that poverty, which largely occurs in dictatorships, directly causes terrorism. Democracy provides opportunity free from restriction and provides them with civil liberties to succeed. As a historical example, the American Revolution (sorry to say it) fights the definition of terrorism, which the New Oxford American Dictionary reports as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The Sons of Liberty fought for civil liberties under democracy, as said in the saying "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION." The people wanted to be represented, which is what democracy provides. After the Sons of Liberty were provided civil liberties under democracy, the terrorism ended.

CON continues by stating the Russia will be opposed to our promotion of democracy. This point is not directly related to the Middle East, but even beyond that CON shows no link. They bring up the economic sanctions by the United States, which are not related to Middle Eastern democracy, but rather the forcefully annexation of Crimea by the Russians. Yes, the Russians are mad about the economic sanctions, but that is not because of democracy promotion, nor Middle Eastern relations. CON fails to prove the link. Furthermore, the resolution clearly states that we are to "promote democracy", not require it or overthrow pro-Russian groups currently in the government. We simply ought to support democracy.

Now I will move on to CON's CounterPlan, which states that the US should focus on democracy promotion in stable countries. I will show you how this fails in two main ways. First, this doesn't fix problem. As stated in the CX, the Middle East isn't stable. The point of democracy promotion is to establish stability and fix what the Middle East is struggling with now. It is worthless to promote democracy in the stable nations, like the UK and Canada, when we should be using this stability-providing tool in the regions that need it, not those who don't. We must stabilize the Middle East, and democracy promotion does just that. It provides citizens with civil liberties to have political say, civil rights, and economic freedom. A democratic government provides freer government, freer people, and freer markets.

Second, it fails to further Middle Eastern civil liberties or our liberalistic obligation. The governments in the Middle East have failed to provide the due rights to their people. Thus, it is our obligation as a democratic society to intervene in a liberalistic way and address the issues. This will provide the essential civil liberties to the people of the Middle East. CONs CP does not address this as it tells the US to stay out of the Middle East. This will only allow the violations of human rights and civil liberties to continue. The CP continues to deny the millions of Middle Easterners the civil liberties and human rights that they deserve.

Now moving on to the PRO side of today's debate which states the United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East. The wording of this resolution is crucial as it shows the CON side cannot just state facts or pragmatic logic, but must confront the moral and philosophical obligations underlying this, as the resolution states "OUGHT". CON has failed to argue the implications behind the resolution and instead has focused on this at a pragmatic and not a philosophical level.

As I stated before contention 1 is that the US promoting democracy will allow for civil liberties to be furthered in the Middle East. Democracy provides the people with freedom and liberties that they deserve in a just society. For instance women in many Middle Eastern countries are discriminated against. Promoting democracy and civil liberties is the just thing for the United States to do.

Contention 2 is that promoting democracy is the liberalistic obligation of the United States. Governments in the Middle East have and will continue to oppress the people and discriminate against women unless we intervene and the solve the issue, as my Criterion of Liberalism does. The US is a democratic nation that guarantees freedoms to all men. At the very least, the United States has the obligation to promote their ideology of equality, democracy, and freedom around the world. This has no harms as we are simply reaffirming our position that we are pro-democracy, pro-equality, and pro-freedom.

IN SUMMARY:
---Saudi Relations are already shaky. Promoting Democracy will strengthen relations and better combat radical terrorist ideologies.
---Russia is not relevant in today's debate about democracy in the Middle East, and the CON fails to show a link between democracy promoting and Russian aggression.
---The CONs CP is invalid since we need to stabilize the Middle East by promoting democracy, not focusing on the already stable, democratic countries; furthermore, the CONs CP fails to meet our liberalistic obligation to better civil liberties in the Middle East.
---CON must prove that we "ought" not, or prove that there is no obligation or duty for the US to stabilize and promote democracy in the Middle East.
---PROs Contention 1: The US promoting democracy will allow for civil liberties to be furthered in the Middle East.
---PROs Contention 2: Promoting democracy is the liberalistic obligation of the United States.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FlamingDog0074 8 months ago
FlamingDog0074
Sorry, man.
Posted by BGordon 8 months ago
BGordon
I was loving the debate, but then I lost internet access, and did not get it back until after it was too late to post for the 4th round. Sorry y'all!
Posted by FlamingDog0074 8 months ago
FlamingDog0074
Oh, sorry man. :(
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 8 months ago
LostintheEcho1498
At first I was like "sure I could do this." Twenty unknown acronyms later "eh..."
Posted by FlamingDog0074 8 months ago
FlamingDog0074
The aff/pro can introduce definitions in the 1AC.
Posted by DATXDUDE 8 months ago
DATXDUDE
Interesting debate. You have no definitions, though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.