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

Sending troops to Darfor

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 8445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I am really against even the thought of sending troops to Darfur but I want to see what people have to say if there is anybody that actually thinks we should. I have got a good amount of info to back it up so let me see what you got.


My case will be split into

1)Resolutional Analysis
2)Why troops are necessary in Darfur

{-Resolutional Analysis-}

Resolution: Sending Troops to Darfur

The resolution does not stipulate the amount of troops to be sent, thus two army groups sent there satisfies the resolution just as 1000 army groups.

Furthermore, the resolution must be debated in accordance to current events and related to events in Darfur in past history

Darfur- "an impoverished region of western Sudan", thus the resolution implies that troops should be sent to the specific area.
Troops- "military personnel"

{-Why Troops are Necessary-}

The affirmation would like to propose a specific plan. The US should send troops to overtake the oil fields in Darfur.

{C.1}-[Increased hegemonic power for the United States]

Russia, China, Iran and many other countries import oil from Sudan and specifically the Darfur region. Considering Sudan is the 7th most oil exporting country in Africa, the amount of oil that exits the country is significant to other foreign markets. By the US overtaking the oil fields, these exports will be curtailed, limiting petroleum imports into the major countries such as Russia and China. By cutting off a source of essential resources, the hegemonic power of the US will increase relative to these countries. US hegemony is critical to world order, for example in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Europe. Warrant in the Evidence:

{C,2}-[Increased Alternative Resource Awareness]

The supply shock associated with the curtailing of oil imports will increase the awareness regarding alternative fuels. For example, in the 1970s, the US saw oil supply shocks where the supply of petroleum was cut short. Consequently, President Reagan enacted a Synfuel program to create alternative fuels in direct response to the oil shock.

{C.3}-[Decrease Violence in Darfur]

David Morse of remarks, "Oil revenues to Khartoum(capital of Sudan) have been about $1 million a day, exactly the amount which the government funnels into arms -- helicopters and bombers from Russia, tanks from Poland and China, missiles from Iran. Thus, oil is fueling the genocide in Darfur at every level." The affirmation plan will stop the revenue to the Sudanese government, further stopping weapon imports, consequently decreasing violence.

{C.4}-[Decreased Iranian Nuclear Threat]

Iran is an important importer of Sudanese oil. Therefore, the curtailing of these oil imports will be able to not only affect the market of Iranian weapons but also the progress of the Iranian nuclear program as it hurts their economic progress.


Darfur is in a state of extreme violence and needs a solution to the carnage and brutalities. By placing American troops in the oil fields, the government of Sudan will not be able to buy any arms and weapons, due to the loss of profit from oil. More importantly is the holistic effect of the affirmative's plan. US hegemony will increase, the Iranian nuclear threat will be decreased, and alternative fuel and resource awareness will increase.
Debate Round No. 1


enrije13 forfeited this round.


ben444422 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


enrije13 forfeited this round.


ben444422 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
I was thinking of accepting this, since my opponent has no definitions.

Darfor: land of the fairies
Troops: fairy troops

You see, there is a big war going on in Darfor and they need help from the fairy troops.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 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: Pro gave a case (well organized at that), con did not. Both dropped out once pro was done talking.