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

Should Bashar al-Assad be taken down

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  
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: 2/10/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 45407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I strongly say that Assad be brought down, he is a Terrorist, he ALLOWS his own people to be killed, he used chemical weapons.

Read this article: as my evidence


I'm tired of the drum beat to topple regimes and change governments. We should mind our own business and leave other countries to solve their own problems. We are in a permanent state of war and it has to end! I say no more !!
Debate Round No. 1


So you would allow the people in Syria to suffer? He has to be killed. and if the Syrian rebels are failing we need to step in and end him. like i said he is Letting his own people die.


There is an old saying that war is hell. I'm sure that both sides are committing atrocities and I'll even concede that Assam maybe committing more. But we need to stop being the world policeman and start to mind our own business. We have been judge and jury too much with regard to policing the world. We should provide humanitarian aid only and declare complete neutrality. People die in war, but I'm not interested in spending anymore of our blood and treasure in a foreign war that's none of our business.

We need to stop interfering in every civil war and revolution around the globe. Starting in Syria we can make a great stand for peace and for non intervention. If Congress represents the voice of the American people, it is significant that 50% of the people are against military intervention in Syria according to an NBC poll. Only 42% support military action. It is also important to bear in mind that the people in countries regarded as the US"s "comrades-in-arms" are also opposed to military force. In France it is 64% of the citizenry. In Britain, the House of Commons, reflecting popular sentiment, has voted against military intervention in Syria.

Also, since the United Nations" investigation team has done its analysis of the alleged chemical attack near Damascus and found somewhat inconclusive, in other words rebel troops may have also used these weapons. An attack on Syria would also be a violation of international law since Syria has not attacked the US.
Debate Round No. 2


Again Bashar al-Assad is a terrorist and must be taken down at all costs, true War may be hell, but We are Americans, and wither My opponent likes it or not, we interfere with almost every war. And with the fact that Assad is using chemical weapons on his own people, the people HE was supposed to defend during his presidency. He is a what I like to call a " Right wing nut job" I hope that you all will vote AFF on this topic thank you.


We can't "take down" as my opponent suggests every tyrant who does harm to his people. It's a foolish national policy to be at constant war around the globe. Sure Assad is a ruthless and brutal dictator, but he's not alone in that regard. Are we supposed to fight the forty or so dictators around the world because they are ruthless to their people? The very idea is ridiculous and even though it would be in keeping with our long tradition it must end. From the battleship Maine incident in Havana in 1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin episode in 1964 to the Kuwait incubator event in 1990 to the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) myth in Iraq in 2003, US intelligence and security outfits have become adept at creating situations and circumstances which are then manipulated to undermine "the enemy." I say enough is enough of this kind of manipulation to support our war machinery. The US and its Western allies, like its regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel, are funding, arming, providing intelligence and offering logistical assistance to groups totally committed to violence and terror as a method of achieving their goal of ousting the Bashar government. The Jahbat al-Nusra, linked to Al-Qaeda, arguably the strongest of the armed groups, is a case in point. The US and the others proclaim that they are all opposed to violence and terrorism and yet on the other hand they unscrupulously use terror outfits in pursuit of their power.

The Syrian conflict has also reinforced longstanding sectarian and tribal divisions in the area. Actors are exploiting the Sunni-Shia dichotomy in particular as a way of playing the majority sect in Islam against the minority with the aim of weakening Muslim solidarity. Sectarian violence is now rearing its ugly head not just in Syria but also --- and for a much longer while --- in Lebanon, Bahrain and Iraq. Sectarian clashes in the area benefit Israel which views turmoil and upheaval in its neighborhood as a boon to its goal of remaining the dominant force in the region. It is significant that Israel and Zionism have been able to ensure that US and Western policy as a whole is dovetailed to meet the core interests of the Israeli state. Taking military action against Syria with the objective of overthrowing Bashar is what Israel wants because Bashar is an important link in the axis of resistance to Israeli dominance which includes Iran and Hezbollah. Israel has conducted three air strikes within Syria in the last year. In this regard, it is worth reiterating that Israel is the hidden hand in much of the politics of other states such as Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Sudan.

By taking military action against muslim states --- partly at the urging of Israel --- the US has brought nothing but misery and suffering to the people. The classic example is of course Iraq. 10 years after its conquest by the US and Britain, Iraq is a totally devastated nation, wrecked by perpetual sectarian violence. Some advocates of military intervention in Syria are of the opinion that since the military action that Obama is planning is limited in scope and duration, Syria will not end up like Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no guarantee. Once it starts the military operation could assume a life of its own. The response from the Syrian military command, and the reaction of Iran and Russia could be decisive. Besides, there are individuals and groups in Obama"s trench who are determined to oust Bashar, to achieve regime change. That could lead to a prolonged campaign. The American people and treasury has born too much of a burden to right the perceived wrongs of the world. This must stop and we must learn to live with nations who have different values and beliefs than we do. As long as they don't attack us then we shouldn't attack them.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Care to elaborate? How should he be killed? Who is going to do the killing? Do you have any ideas for what should be done afterward?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made more convincing arguments and he happened to refute Pro's contentions and arguments. Overall, I feel like Con did better in this debate.