The Instigator
SebUK
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Series 1 : Episode 4 : Bashar Al-Assad should abdicate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
ChosenWolff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,044 times Debate No: 56248
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

SebUK

Con

Round 1 is for acceptance only , the burden of proof is on Pro . The Only requirement is that Pro must have been on the website for at least 3 weeks and will treat this debate seriously .
ChosenWolff

Pro

I accept. Despite my disagreement with the word "should", I will argue this. My tactic will be based on proving that net-good will come as a result of Bashar Al-Assad's abdication.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Con

Sorry for the delay . I will present why I think Bashar Al Assad should not abdicate but the audience must remember the burden of proof is on Pro so I just have to refute what he says to win . First of all we have to analyse the nature of the conflict in Syria from the beginning . The Syrian Civil War supposedly started with the security forces opening fire on 'peaceful demonstrators' . I quote ' Despite thousands of people taking to the streets since the start of the protest movement in March, Syria’s leaders have always blamed the unrest on armed groups they say are terrorising the country, thus justifying the military’s deployment. The opposition has responded by repeatedly calling for their movement to stay peaceful at all costs. ' (http://observers.france24.com...) . Did the demonstrations really stay peaceful? did they even start peaceful? . I quote again 'In the first weeks alone, 48 casualties by “armed protesters” are documented

In the following days and weeks, the protests spread. Riots and pillaging began anew. The Assad government’s offers of concessions were ignored, and the authorities responded to further violence with repression. A look at the balance sheet reveals that dozens of people died while attempting to storm state buildings or (as in the case of Sanamayn) army bases. The government then reacted violently to what they saw as an armed conspiracy. In the next six weeks, until the end of April, these conflicts and battles took the lives of more than a hundred people – among them “armed protesters”, peaceful demonstrators, and uninvolved bystanders. At the same time, however, by the end of April 2011 at least eight more cases (in addition to the seven police in Daraa on March 20, 2011) were documented in which public officials were killed. The media have ignored many of these incidents, which contradict the Western reading of the Syrian revolt (for instance, the well over 100 bombings to date). The following events have not been called into doubt even by the English-language Wikipedia writers (who discuss the facts and entries intensively and seriously):' When not only protestors die but also soldiers and other security forces the situation is at least a little suspicious . The reality is the protests looked more like riots . It is even possible that Qatar has armed protestors or funded some demonstrators in cities . The big question for people who know what is really happening in Syria is why there is a war there? Why are foreign powers like Qatar spending millions on arming the rebellion? It's about pipelines .

' the tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.'

What is really happening here is Qatar trying to create a proxy government in Syria and they want to create a pipeline through Syria going up to Eastern Europe (Which is why Russia supports Assad) . ' Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.' (http://www.zerohedge.com...) The link I just gave you has a lot of information and I will post a small part here I strongly advise my opponent to read the whole article as it is very useful . '

The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.'

Right now let's talk about something else , Support . According to numerous studies Bashar Al-Assad has around 55-70% support . 'The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, ' . (http://www.theguardian.com...) '

LONDON — After two years of civil war, support for the regime of
Syrian President Bashar Assad was said to have sharply increased.

NATO has been studying data that told of a sharp rise in support for
Assad. The data, compiled by Western-sponsored activists and organizations,
showed that a majority of Syrians were alarmed by the Al Qaida takeover of
the Sunni revolt and preferred to return to Assad, Middle East Newsline reported.' (http://www.worldtribune.com...) . Because I only have 700 characters left I don't have time to finish writing all my argument's down , in the next round I will make addditional points (Syrian Elections 2014) (True nature of the rebellion,Al Qeada) .

ChosenWolff

Pro

I want to start by saying, its absolutely absurd that Slavic has given me the BOP. I will let the audience decide if I should truly be held by it. With that said, I am going to ignore much of my opponents OP. Refuting it does not defeat the BOP which I may have taken. Therefore, I will go with my own line of reasoning for R2.

I. The escalation of civil war

Bashar Al Assad may be in a justifiable position of power. This isn't important. What we do know, is that there are 100,000's of rebels within the country, fighting to oust the autocracy. Bashar Al Assad's seat in government, is doing more harm to his country than good. What have been his accomplishments as a president? Starting a brutal civiil war and turning 75% of the international community against him? This is not a purposeful president.


Bashar Al Assad's seat in power is one massive struggle that's about to peak to 100,000 deaths. How is keeping him in power a good thing? I strongly contend that if the regime steps down, then so will the majority of the free Syria forces.

II. Ba'tthist Chemical Weaponization

The Assad regime has undoubtebly been using chemical weapons. This has caused ill feelings among most of the populace, and is in direct violation of international law. Not only is Assad eligible for serious abdication consideration, but may very well be a war criminal. War criminals using chemical weapons are sentenced to death by international law, which means Assad, if he were not a world leader, would be a fugitive from the Geneva courts.



The above are sites that NATO and the European Council have reported to be used for production and hosting of chemical weapons. Its hardly much of a debate anymore, besides a few hardcore apologists and "truthers". My opponent may be able to defend national in fighting, but how can he support this violation of human rights?

III. Return of Refugees

Like all wars, many people flee the area of conflict. As seen with the recent Syrian election, many were willing to temporarily return to vote. Many were still to frightened to enter the country. We can assume that the downfall of Assad, would see the return of many refugees in Lebanon and Iraqi Kurdistan, which is sparking terrorist attacks from Al-Qaeda.



This is outrageous. There are 100'000's of citizens who left the work force, so they could dodge the blunt shell of chemical artillery shells. Which rip the faces open, and burn you from inside. You can't justify such horror. My opponent must concede that the abdication of Assad would at least return a sizable portion of refugees back to Syria. This is just a basic truism.

IV. The New Cold War

There fave been five coined "new cold war" conflicts since 2008. Many would argue there's more. Russia and the US have been in a state of sour relations since 2008's invasion of Georgia. Syria is just another stomping ground between super powers, and its the minority loyalists who are supporting it. Assad's regime is not allowing truly free democracy and referendums. When a nation can't make independent politics, others will step in.



This is not our conflict, but Americans and Russians will keep fighting the damn proxy war, until one side makes a concession. If we are to judge how proxy wars in the 70's ended, the abdication of Assad would be it. The US gets the excuse of saying that Assad is gone, and Russia can claim that Syria stayed out of rebel hands.

There is no other option. Russia and the United States are both sending troops and officers to assist their allegiances.
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Con

My opponent has said 'I want to start by saying, its absolutely absurd that Slavic has given me the BOP. I will let the audience decide if I should truly be held by it. With that said, I am going to ignore much of my opponents OP. Refuting it does not defeat the BOP which I may have taken. Therefore, I will go with my own line of reasoning for R2.' oh hold on what does it say in the title? 'Bashar Al-Assad should abdicate' This is a positive statement and therefore the BOP is on Pro , I have also stated in Round 1 'Round 1 is for acceptance only , the burden of proof is on Pro . ' . My opponent makes the claim that what really is important that there are rebels within the country fighting against an aristocracy , the statement is semi-true but lacks a lot of detail , Rebels are fighting against the government - Yes and? . Aristocracy - Even though he has more power than an average president he has been elected into the position with 88% of votes voting in favour of him staying as the president . (http://en.wikipedia.org...) . My opponent also didn't analyse who the rebels are he simply makes the claim that because some people are fighting against a government this means they are good . ' Starting a brutal civiil war and turning 75% of the international community against him? This is not a purposeful president. ' I have already explained in the previous round the nature of the Syrian Civil War . ' Bashar Al Assad's seat in power is one massive struggle that's about to peak to 100,000 deaths. How is keeping him in power a good thing? ' My opponent makes the ridicilous claim that all civilians that have died in the conflict where killed by Assad I still have to wait for any evidence to come from Pro proving that 100,000 thousand civilians have been killed by Bashar al-Assad . How is keeping him a good thing ? - You are arguing in favour of him abdicating I'm simply refuting your arguments , Bashar al-Assad should stay because he is a legitimate democratically elected president fighting against terror groups . He should stay because he has the support of his people . Next my opponent brings up the topic of chemical weapons - 'The Assad regime has undoubtebly been using chemical weapons. ' My opponent has provided no proof or source to support his own claim . First of all Bashar Al-Assad is getting rid of the chemical weapons that the country has . 'On September 14, 2013, the United States and Russia announced an agreement that would lead to the elimination of Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles by mid-2014. In October 2013, the OPCW-UN Joint Mission destroyed all of Syria's declared chemical weapons manufacturing and mixing equipment.'' . (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I also forgot to mention that some rebels have addmited that they have chemical weapons . () . There may be proof that chemical weapons have been used but there is no proof Assad has used them . Saudis and Qatar have spent millions on the Syrian Opposition and there is a possibility that they have provided them with it , they could have also made it myself or stole it from the government . 'Like all wars, many people flee the area of conflict. As seen with the recent Syrian election, many were willing to temporarily return to vote. Many were still to frightened to enter the country. We can assume that the downfall of Assad, would see the return of many refugees in Lebanon and Iraqi Kurdistan, which is sparking terrorist attacks from Al-Qaeda. ' Do you know what would happen if the rebels took over Syria? 20% of the population are alawities and christians who would be prosecuted by the radical Sunni government . Many refugges would still not return to Syria as many of them support Assad . () () . '. The US gets the excuse of saying that Assad is gone, and Russia can claim that Syria stayed out of rebel hands.

There is no other option. Russia and the United States are both sending troops and officers to assist their allegiances.' Bashar al-Assad abdicating wouldn't solve anything it would simply be a next move for US towards invading Iran . Russia would be very angry at the formation of a sunni state in Syria . Conclusion = a big portion of my opponents arguments are just pretty pictures that my opponent assumes go against Assad . I have said in the previous round that I will adress -The Syrian Elections but I don't feel the need anymore as well have probably heard by now and -the true nature of the rebellion , which I will adress right now . Syrian Rebels are not one thing they are a very loose alliance which now can barely even be called that since different terror groups have been fighting against each other . (http://en.wikipedia.org...) . A study from last year claims that half of all Syrian rebels are hardline Islamists and I assume since than the number is even bigger . (http://www.foxnews.com...;) Simply look at the map of Syria ( http://en.wikipedia.org...;) and see how much terriotory ISIS controlls at the moment .
ChosenWolff

Pro

I. Con's "88% of votes" argument

I believe our dearest Kiim Jung Un was elected by 100% of the votes, and that's with a population of about 25 million. The problem with the "so called" Syrian elections, is that they weren't the sligt bit democratic. That same 75% of the world that is currently condemning Assad, is also condemning the process of the elections. Here are a couple major issues I have with how Syria conducts itself.

- Kurds and other minority groups are limited in speech, protest, and campaigning. This is a strategic way to suppress the minority vote.

- All three candidates were either government supporters, or political moderates.

- Media rights and other expression and campaigning conduits were severely limited.

- The elections went against many OSCE regulations.

- Ballots were not availiable (As in banned by the government) from the refugees outside of the country. Who were expected to vote against Assad.

- There was no voting boxes in rebel held territory, which is the "safe zone" for anti-government supporters.



II. Constant Straw Man

Its really frustrating how my opponent keeps putting words in my mouth, and beats around the bush. I never said that all the civilian deaths were killed by Assad (Most of them were though), or that the rebels were not bad people (I don't think most of them are). This is not my argument in the slightest.

He can not answer the fundamental question. Will the abdication of Assad de-escalate the conflict?



III. Chemical weapons abolishment

Once again, we see more supposedly unintentional straw man. It does not matter if he's shipping off weapons. The contention is that he's a war criminal, who would most likely face the death penalty were he to go up against the International Court of Justice in Geneva. Do I need to explain why having a war criminal in power is a bad thing?

Here's a better representation that shows that war crimes are happening on both sides of the coin, although people are blaming the civilian deaths on Assad. This is not war. Its Kurdish genocide by the Assad regime.



IV. Demographic argument

My opponent attempts to get sympathy points for arguing that minority groups would be opposed to a so called "radical shiite government". Con still wants to make this a "Rebel vs Assad" debate, which it isn't. I'm not buying any of his arguments. He has given us no way of proving that the minority groups (the largest being the kurds, who support Free Syria), will leave the country if the Democratic moderate forces took power.

V. Its an American excuse to invade Iran

-_-............Well, good debate myy friend, but I believe that any resolution you may of held, is more than negated by now. Good luck in future endeavors, and I hope we get a pluray of fair and honest votes.



Viva la Revolution!!!
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Con

Lets start off by enjoying this song . (https://www.youtube.com...) . My opponent started off claiming that the elections in Syria where not democratic and compared them to elections in DPRK . There are big differences between the two and Bashar al-Assad did not win by 100% .

'If you suspect that any division in power or nod to democracy in North Korea is a sham, you're right. "Voting" in North Korea is a mandatory exercise, which serves as both a census and way for officials to keep tabs on the public. The Economis texplains:



[Voters] are presented with a single candidate in the district where they live. These candidates are chosen by the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, the governing coalition, which is controlled by the Workers' Party. There is only one box to tick. Abstaining or voting no would be a dangerous act of treason, given that voting takes place in booths that do not provide any secrecy, and dissenting votes must be posted into a separate ballot box. In this way the population (everyone over 17 is obliged to vote) endorses the 687 deputies in the SPA, a body that, in any case, is merely a rubber-stamp parliament that is rarely convened. In practice the supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, calls the shots, supported by the Presidium, a smaller group of senior officials.' - (http://www.thewire.com...) . What does democracy mean ? 'a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting' -(http://www.merriam-webster.com...) . In it's truest meaning democracy means 'majority rule' . Bashar al-Assad won by majority vote . ' Kurds and other minority groups are limited in speech, protest, and campaigning. This is a strategic way to suppress the minority vote. ' The regions in the nothern part of Syria are managed by kurds themselves . - (http://www.csmonitor.com...) . ' All three candidates were either government supporters, or political moderates.' There were more than 20 canditates , the fact that only 3 met the criteria required to run is not something incredible , there were only 2 main canditates in the American elections . '- Media rights and other expression and campaigning conduits were severely limited.' My opponent hasn't provided me with a source , Media was always heavily regulated in Syria . 'Ballots were not availiable (As in banned by the government) from the refugees outside of the country. Who were expected to vote against Assad. ' That's a very interesting claim ... with no evidence to support it , the big majority of Syrians in Lebanon have voted for Bashar al-Assad - (http://www.theguardian.com...) . ' Belgium, Cananda, Egypt, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and the United States did not allow the elections to be held in the Syrian embassy.' . - (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Many European countries have not allowed Syrians to vote . It get's even more ridicilous my opponent says '- There was no voting boxes in rebel held territory, which is the "safe zone" for anti-government supporters.' This is not only a terrible argument but so incredibly ironic . '


BEIRUT, Lebanon — Rebels in southern Syria killed more than 20 people in a mortar attack on a tent put up as part of presidential elections next month, antigovernment activists said on Friday.


The overnight attack appeared to be the first by opponents of President Bashar al-Assad directly targeting the election and raised the specter of further rebel assaults on rallies and other events.' Rebels have killed innocent people because they didn't want them to vote in favour of Assad . - (http://www.dailystar.com.lb...) . how the hell is it possible to have an election on enemy territory ? especially when the rebels have already killed 50 voters on government territory . Like I have stated before . Below his arguments he has a picture of people holding a banner saying 'ASSAD UPSIDE-DOWN DEMOCRACY: YES HE CAN KILL VOTERS TO BECOME PRESIDENT!' How idiotic is that when it is the rebels who have killed voters . 'Will the abdication of Assad de-escalate the conflict? ' I have proved the BOP is on pro , I am simply refuting all my opponent says and I have already made my points in previous rounds . My opponent has not proven how Bashar al-Assad abdicating would solve the crisis . 'Once again, we see more supposedly unintentional straw man. It does not matter if he's shipping off weapons. The contention is that he's a war criminal, who would most likely face the death penalty were he to go up against the International Court of Justice in Geneva. Do I need to explain why having a war criminal in power is a bad thing? ' Just what I expected a completly baseless argument , My opponent has not proven that Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons therefore I cannot argue against something that doesn't have any evidence for it . The picture below is too small for me to read or even make sense out of it so i'm not gone address it . 'My opponent attempts to get sympathy points for arguing that minority groups would be opposed to a so called "radical shiite government". ' Wait what? you mean the Sunni government that would emerge? yes . 'He has given us no way of proving that the minority groups (the largest being the kurds, who support Free Syria), will leave the country if the Democratic moderate forces took power.' My opponent hasn't proved that kurds support the FSA (which is not the main rebel group anymore and he hasn't proved that the 'democratic forces' would take power which seems pretty stupid as the terror groups like ISIS and Al Nusra are much more effective . What my opponent says is that the 'democratic forces' would simply take control of the country like this which is impossible they would have to rule together with the radical islamists that make up half of the whole Syrian opposition , they are not just gone stand there and let some of the less radical rebel groups form their own government . When the government would be formed it would be made up of various leaders of the Syrian opposition many of which would come from the radical groups this would cause Christians and Alawities to leave Syria in big numers . Many Christians have already been forced out of their homes. -(http://www.al-monitor.com...) - (http://rt.com...) . Syrian radicals control most of the rebel held territory . Long Live President Bashar Al-Assad , the lion of Syria . Thousands of Assad supporters rally in Damascus



ChosenWolff

Pro

Alright, my opponent has no intrest in debating this. If he did, he would of used R4 to defend his points, instead of posting two articles he didn't write, that didn't relate anything to the debate. All my refutation the past two rounds has been completely dropped by my opponent. I will give him one more round, which will be allotted to him to actually defend the points I made. Good luck to him.

Frankly, this round was a waste of time.
Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Con

'Alright, my opponent has no intrest in debating this. ' interest* . '. All my refutation the past two rounds has been completely dropped by my opponent. ' I don't know if my opponent is blind or not since I just refuted 95% of his arguments in the previous round while my opponent addresses only a few of mine . I didn't adress the OSCE regulations since that wasn't specific at all and my opponent hasn't made it clear what he is talking about . 'instead of posting two articles he didn't write, that didn't relate anything to the debate.' These things are called sources , yeah , debaters use sources . Conclusion : My opponent has failed to prove why president Bashar al-Assad should abdicate and I have refuted 95% of my opponents baseless arguments (baseless arguments as he has provided no sources and didn't get into detail explaining them). He has also responded to my arguments with lack of detail , if you take away the little pretty pictures there is not much detail at all . Apart from these things my opponent completly ignored my arguments about the nature of the Syrian Civil War . Vote Con .
ChosenWolff

Pro

Me and my opponent obviosly disagree that he properly addressed my sources. I would also like to inform the audience, my opponent did not need to copy and paste two sources text to this debate. He should of linked it.

In reality, his R4 is only about 3 sentences long. Good luck, and my opponent has made no refutations I can counter rebuttal. Therefore, his resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
Conduct =Read from top to bottom=

Supported by
(a)Burden of Proof
(b) Issue of personal attacks

The conditions should be fair to both sides. The debate was more or less Rebels vs Assad. It dwindles into confusion as what was expected when The instigator failed to address how the BoP is on Pro. Only in R2 did Con addressed how the burden is shifted. In R1 Con simply state conditions that are unclear and unjustified.
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
Its lack of clarity is worth the penalty on conduct points.

Issue of Personal attacks
In R5, Con's states "I don't know if my opponent is blind or not since I just refuted 95% of his arguments in the previous round while my opponent addresses only a few of mine". A personal attack by claiming your opponent is blind is a misconduct. Personal attacks ought to be avoided in a formal debate, to the best of my recollection.

An Ad hom requires another penalty on conduct.

The 2 premise supports the Conduct point award to Pro.

Arguments and Source
Supported by
a)Democracy
b)Chemical Weapons

R1
Con makes the claim that armed protestors were more violent. Further asserting that Assad has popular support and that the rebels were armed through Saudi and Qatar. Pro did not however refute directly towards this contention because Pro was displeased at the lack of clarity of Burden of Proof.

It is either dropping Con's case or Pro's claim, I will drop both of your case. BoP was on Pro, Regardless,Con decided to make a case from rebels leaving pro the choice whether to refute of fulfill the BoP. Hence, the 'confusion'
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
'Democracy' =Read from top to bottom=

Con says that Assad is democratically elected, shown throughout the debate. However, Pro says that Assad's 77% support is rigged as like North Korea's election. Con refuted by posting an article of the economist about how North Korea's election was carried out while posting rebuttals on Pro's case. I did not find how Con copy pasted the first article nor was the second article, clearly, Con was contesting Pro's case.

The problem of Con's rebuttals is that Con's elaboration was vague. Con made this response "This is not only a terrible argument but so incredibly ironic . '". You need to show how. You can't simply spit out 'your argument is fallacious' and hope that it scores voters. Showing reason XYZ on why it is terrible would have been a full rebuttal. It clearly wasn't in this case.

Although, it was backed by sources. This point goes to Con however. Con provided several articles from the news outlet proving the premise whilst Pro's case "Con's 88% votes" was without any source. Moreover, Con's source contradicts Pro's case, as such Sources to Con. Pro wins argument for the vague rebuttals.
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
Chemical Weapons =Read from top to bottom=

The weakness Con had was failure to elaborate a proper full fledged rebuttal. Similarly in this case, Con did not explain how. Con says that Pro failed to prove Assad used chemical weapons, but he did not show 'how'. An assertion without evidence. Looking back at previous rounds is just a tug of war of 'who did it first' 'wait!!! he signed the chemical paparrrr, he is innocent'. Neither side argued for their case substantively.

The only thing worth noticing was that Con's rebuttal was poor, and ofter resulting to source cowering to prove Con's point. This warrant only the source point, not the argument point. In contrast, Pro's source was poor, the picture did not establish the correlation. It merely showed the numbers on death, but did not establish the premise that Assad commit any sort of genocide.

Ultimately, Con provided the most strongest source, but the weakest rebuttals. Pro has the exact opposite, which is why sources and arguments go to their respective sides.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
There aren't enough reliable sources to make this debate votable. Pro clearly had the BoP, as specified in R1, and since he had the positive position. I don't think he proved that there the alternative to Assad was better, or tied Assad directly to the events in Syria.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by n7 3 years ago
n7
SebUKChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I think both sides could've done better, I'm giving conduct to Pro. Con dropped many arguments in R4, hardly had any of his own and attacked Pro in the next round. Arguments goes to Pro. Con dropped a lot of arguments and never responded to Pro's R3 rebuttals. He just copies and pastes from articles about the voting in Syria and how rebels have killed others. He never responds to Pro's other arguments. For example, Pro's argument was that more deaths can be avoided if Bashar stepped down, not about who did the killing. He also dropped the response to the chemical weapons argument. Sources go to Con. Pro had many pictures, but no sources with them. He makes many claims without sources, although Con has many sources mostly from reliable places.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
SebUKChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: If I don't vote on this in the next few days please send me a reminder. My messages are open, so the reminder can be from SebUK or ChosenWolff
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
SebUKChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
SebUKChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con because pro accepted the debate, yet he conceded by saying that the BoP doesn't lie on himself alone. However, in terms of arguments, pro did a better job in refuting all the opponent's arguments; by using the international complications that this conflict is likely to face and deaths, which overpowers the justified ruling movement. Con also c and p'ed two articles completely, therefore almost FF'ed some of the rounds.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
SebUKChosenWolffTied
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: I'm only scoring Conduct, since Con's reaction in R5 was unacceptable.