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

Serious human rights violations legitimize international military intervention

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: 3/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,440 times Debate No: 49078
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I am only looking for a serious and well thought out, non abusive debate.

1st Round- Acceptance (No arguments Please)
2nd Round- Definition and a maximum of two key arguments of substantive material, with rebuttal only for the con side on the pros first argument.
3rd Round- Rebuttal for both sides and a maximum of 3 arguments of substantive material.
4th Round- Summary of each side's case and rebuttal (No arguments please)

Vote fairly on whom you, the esteemed audience, deem to be the best debater on this topic! I have made it open to argue easily to both sides, so there can be no accusation of bias.

Looking forward to a great debate, and may the best debater win!


I accept this debate. I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


To start off my speech today, I would like to first thank my opponent for taking up the pro side in this debate. As I start off the first round, I will define the topic. I know this is unorthodox and it is usually the affirmative speaker who defines it, but as I am going first, it appears that this responsibility falls to me.

I define 'serious' in this context as a problem that requires some form of action, or at the very least, a demand for attention. I define 'human rights' as a right which belongs to each and every person, regardless of: status, age, gender, nationality, sex, beliefs and any other possible variable in this context. I define 'violations' as breaking the standard code or procedure. My definition for 'legitimize' is to allow or make allowances for under a circumstance. I define 'international' as all registered and formally recognized countries of the world. I define 'military' as legally recognised armed forces of a registered and recognized country. Lastly, I define 'intervention' as causing a disruption to normal procedure.

Now, I will proceed with my substantive material:

There have been countless examples of serious abuse of human rights over the course of the history of mankind. Some of these have included the holocaust, and in more recent times, torture in countries in the Middle East. These are inhumane and heinous crimes that go against the very fabric of human morality, and sneer at the likes of: compassion, empathy and sympathy.

One of the worst aspects of this problem is that in most cases there was no help for the victims, no form of compensation, revenge, not even a guarantee that this toying with the fabric of morality would ever stop. There is often no help from the countries own armed forces, indeed they are disturbingly frequently involved in the heart of the brutal torture themselves. In these cases, armed military intervention of international sources is absolutely pivotal to upholding a key tenet of humanity in the victims, that of hope.

Especially in third world countries, where this abuse of basic human rights happens more frequently, people have no means of protest against this indignity and this brutal torture. They cannot resort to arms without the appropriate resources and even if they did, the oppressive government would have no second thoughts about bombing or otherwise disposing of them in a violent massacre. In these cases, there is simply no other option for those caught in the pitiful quandary of having their basic rights discarded, apart from armed intervention.

Now onto my second point:

Without armed military intervention to restore order, the citizens who have lost their basic rights will resort to much more extreme measures in order to survive. With no hope, there will be a massive increase in the number of murders, robberies and other crimes, simply to attempt to escape from the problem which should never have existed in the first place. Without military intervention, countries will begin to fall apart over human rights violations, and costly civil wars will spread like grassfires.

Today I have shown that armed military intervention is indeed necessary in case of serious violations of human rights because:

  • The citizens that are being oppressed will be helpless without it.
  • Civil bloodbaths will break out as a measure of desperation.

To take away the basic human rights of people is undoubtedly unjust and cruel, and international military intervention is indeed needed to rectify this offence.



This is rather confusing. The debate topic is that serious human rights violations legitimize international military intervention. I am pro which means I am defending this idea. My opponent is con yet he is arguing that military intervention is necessary in the case of human rights violations.

I won't make any arguments in this round, and will wait for my opponent to make some in the next.
Debate Round No. 2


oops sorry, my bad, lets just swap sides, since you didnt post any arguments last round ill make it fair by not posting any arguments this round. Again I apologize and a note to the voters, I am now pro and my opponent is now con.

i hope thats ok with you?


I am not prepared to do that kind of thing. Lets just end the debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Vignesh forfeited this round.


And thats the end of it. Don't vote please.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by yay842 2 years ago
"no trolls please" is an invitation for trolls. ~yay842
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years 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: Confusion.