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

Russia should change their stance regarding the Syrian civil war

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: 11/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 82905
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)





As we have seen, the Syrian civil war has been raging for nearly five years, without showing any signs of abating. The war is deeply divided into many sides, primarily Russia supporting the Syrian government headed by President Bashar al-Assad, and the U.S.A. and their allies supporting the Free Syrian Army. The war also includes the presence of the terrorist organisation called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Having given a brief outline of the war, I await a challenge to this topic. I suggest that we explain our arguments shortly in round 2, followed by a detailed discussion in rounds 3 and 4, and finally our closing statements in round 5.


Shabbat Shalom!

Pro has not fully specified whether round one is for acceptance or not, only stating that we will 'explain our arguments' in round two--which of course, could easily be interpreted as 'outlining our arguments in round two'.

As such, because there is a total of five rounds I do not think it would be of benefit to the debate if I was to provide my opening case in this round--so will leave it to Pro to give theirs first.

The debate should follow this structure:


-Opening case.


-Additional rebuttals and counter-arguments.

-Closing arguments/statements.

>>Points of Contention:

As Con, I will be arguing that Russia should not change its stance regarding the Syrian civil war and should continue to support the Bashar al-Assad government.

Pro has already pointed out that this conflict includes the presence of ISIS--which will be a key part of my own argument.

My main contentions will be as follows:

1. ISIS and their impact in Syria.

2. Why Bashar-al Assad should stay and *what* is most beneficial for Syria.

3. Why Russia is assuming the logical position in supporting Bashar al-Assad.

>>As instigator of the debate, Pro has the BoP in showing exactly *why* Russia should change its stance on Syria and *what* the benefits would be to that. Essentially, they will have to fully affirm their resolution in order to win.

I eagerly await the next round.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the challenge, and I also thank you for informing me of the correct structure of an ideal debate, considering that I am very new to this website and a novice in debating.

Continuing with the debate, I would like to put forward my first argument.

ARGUMENT: Why Bashar al-Assad is not a person not fit enough to be the ruler of Syria
    1. Bashar al-Assad is known to have initiated violent action against peaceful protestors who rebelled against the government in the wake of the Arab Springs. This initiation of violence against peaceful protestors laid the founding of the Syrian Civil War which has now escalated rapidly, and has shown absolutely no signs of abatement.

    1. The Assad government is also known to make use of chemical weapons on his own people. In my opinuon, usage of chemical weapons against anti-government protests is one of the worst forms of attrocity a government can commit on its own people.

    1. A ruler of such nature, I believe, is not fit enough to rule a nation well and hence, putting Assad out of power, whether by peaceful means or otherwise, is the only solution that can lead to an abatement of the war.

I thank the Con side for allowing me to post my arguments. In the reply to this argument, I expect the following from the Con side:

    • Argument why Assad is fit enough to rule Syria

    • Any other issue that the Con side wishes to debate upon, further ahead.



>>Thanks Pro, as for me clarifying standard debate structure--you're welcome ;) In addition I am sure you will get used to debate if you stay at the site. Well done with your first argument.

--As specified in my acceptance, I will outline three key points in my own argument on as to why Russia should continue its support for Bashar-al Assad.

Opening Case:

C1.) ISIS and their Impact in Syria:

Since 2013, ISIS has become a prevalent force in both Syria and Iraq; gaining territories and expanding their presence. The eventual stated aim is to establish an Islamic caliphate [I.E state] that is governed in strict accordance with Islamic--I.E Sharia--Law. [1.]

Within this state, all non-Sunni Muslims and other religious minorities would be forced to convert and killed if they did not; with such examples already occurring within ISIS-held territories in Iraq, and Syria.

As well as having their own exclusively Sunni-Muslim state, ISIS wants to expand its domination elsewhere *and* make a significant impact in the West; in the form of committing attacks within its borders and essentially leading a War against it.

Thus, it would be rational to conclude that ISIS should not have its own state or have any possibilities for creating its own state--such as the dismantlement of the Assad government. *If* Assad was to be overthrown or removed, this would provide ISIS with the opportunity at expanding their territories and establishing their state.

The reason why ISIS is relevant to the whether Russia should remain an ally of Syria's, is largely because Russia is currently attempting to remove ISIS from Syria--not to contain them, but to actually destroy their military presence *and* their primary sources of financial income [2.] Because of its political relationship with Syria [one that has existed for over four decades], Russia has become the most active and forceful in the fight against ISIS [3.]

C2.) Why Bashar al-Assad Should Stay and What is Most Beneficial for Syria:

Now onto the wider context surrounding the Syrian conflict. What should be taken into account as regards to whether Assad remains as leader or not, are the desires of the Syrian people. According to an official NATO report, at least 70% of Syrians would rather Assad stay. [4.] would particularly apply to Syrian Christians, who have been protected under the Assad leadership. As can be seen with the case of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, the persecution of Christians would be significantly increased [5.]

In addition to ISIS, there also exists the Syrian rebels--who are the primary opposition to Assad, and the ones who want to see his government removed. These Syrian rebels consistently engage in violence and, according to the U.N, are the ones who are likely responsible for using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians [6.]

A member of the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry commented that:

'Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.'

Further stating:

'This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.'

Therefore, it is extremely doubtful that the Assad government and his forces were responsible for using gas against civilians, and that the Syrian rebels are terrorist group instead of a 'moderate opposition'.

The key point here is that it is in the best interests for Syria to keep al-Assad, as there are absolutely no other viable alternatives.

C3.) Why Russia is Assuming the Logical Position in Supporting Bashar al-Assad:

To follow on from contention two, Russia is indeed 'right' that without Assad, Syria would essentially fall apart--and give rise to more terrorism. Without an official governance, there is no form of official ruling and other more dangerous groups can easily exploit a population; as would happen in Syria.

Even if the U.S was to do what it did with Iraq and *attempt* to enforce a democratic government, the reality is that it would simply not be successful. Iraq can actually be used a clear example of what can happen if a government is removed. [7.] Once again, there would another failed democracy and state in the Middle East, and people would become more vulnerable to persecution and exploitation.
Debate Round No. 2


shreyas61196 forfeited this round.


Emilrose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


shreyas61196 forfeited this round.


Emilrose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


shreyas61196 forfeited this round.


-->>FF and failure to affirm resolution~~*and* provide rebuttals to my opening argument, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
I am pro Russia. regardless of russia's stance in the war.

on the First point: Russia sided with the government because that is logical. ISIS proved to be so disorganized that they did not move for a legal separatist movement. They wanted to assume control. Russia suggests this is a flawed objective.

second point: ISIS had no government structure. they were moving for anarchy. whish is Ludacris.

third point: If Russia wanted to support the free army instead, they could provide a sufficient government.

forth point: the war is against the Syrian government. where was the diplomacy?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
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: Pro ff more times, so conduct to Con.