The Instigator
jayman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AkulMunjal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should the US strike Syria?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 37508
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

jayman

Con

The United States should not strike Syria because it will start a whole new war, and it will bring in allies such as Russia, Iran and China against us.
AkulMunjal

Pro

1. Terms: strike I'm pretty sure you meant military strike
US: The government of the United States of America is the federal government of the constitutional republic of fifty states that constitute the United States, as well as one capital district, and several other territories. The federal government is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, respectively; the powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

The Plan: The United States Federal Government Should have an air-strike on the abusive political factions of Syria.
1st Watch this video https://www.youtube.com...
Do you want to perpetuate that abuse?
A. An airstrike against Asad would not be the same as military intervention, it would be quick cost efficient, and it would prevent a war, because air strikes are not that significant: Iran, Russia, and China do not have the resources to go to war over an airstrike all of their threats are empty and hold no water. We would not be putting troops in Syria, so who would they be going to war with? Your argument does not make sense in this context.
B. Human Rights: We have one of the biggest economies in the world in the United States, and we have an ethical obligation to prevent the human rights violations that are being perpetuated in Syria.
C.. Soft Power: Hegemony allows us to prevent wars in the future, but that means that we sometimes have to intervene in certain areas. By getting involved in Syria we show the world that we don't mess around with bad people.
D: Golden Arches: By involving ourselves in Syria now, we could help promote democracy, and countries that are democratic have not gone to war with each other for a very long time.
E: Spillover: By illustrating this concept to Syria we make the middle east a more peaceful place that will be less prone to violence.
F: Impact Calculus: Basically by having a non-invasive air-strike on Assad. The United States will be saving the lives of many innocent people, we will be preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction, and we will also be saving the lives of future soldiers that would have to get involved if a war broke out.
Debate Round No. 1
jayman

Con

jayman forfeited this round.
AkulMunjal

Pro

so do I win? if not extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
jayman

Con

jayman forfeited this round.
AkulMunjal

Pro

Extend my arguments, and I call abuse: if he did not want to debate he should not have posed the challenge, don't let him make new arguments in the rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.