The Instigator
S4V4N7
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Should we militarily intervene in the Syrian Civil War?

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 8 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 776 times Debate No: 36492
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

S4V4N7

Con

I think we shouldn't militarily intervene in the Syrian rebel war because chances are high that Russia could nuke us for going to war with one of Russia's allies.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

1. There's no way Russia would risk a nuclear war over the war torn country of Syria.

2. If we intervened, we wouldn't do so with US troops and equipment but we'd supply weapons, intel, supplies etc in such a way that would make our support seem less in the eyes of the world.

3. Human rights are being violated in Syria and we have an obligation as a UN nation to step in and intervene.

4. While Syria is a a Russian "ally" it's not a militarily binding alliance that would REQUIRE Russia to do anything.

Therefore, there is no risk of nuclear war with Russia via Syria so we should intervene to end the conflict, help on the human rights front and secure Syria as a regional power once more.


Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Yes, but the FSA is supported by terrorists and putting them in power would only hurt the country and our interests. I say Russia, with its military base, should take the lead in any intervention, just as they did in negotiations over the Chemical Weapons. I have been largely impressed by the Russian Union lately. Except for their homophobic laws... but that's minor details
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
On the other hand, the US would probably lose less soldiers invading Syria then the rebels would overthrowing the regime. In a way the USA would be saving lives.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
The Syrian government is killing its own people. Thats no excuse to go to war. Many coutnries have governments that commit crimes upon their own people. When South Africa had an Aparatheid government, the USA didn't go invade the country. What North Korea does to its people in concentration camps is much worse than what is happening in Syria.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
How can you champion supporting either side? On one hand you have the terrorist supported Free Syrian Army and on the other you have the oppressive Syrian regime. Considering both of these are terrible options to support, it would seem you would have to choose the better of the two based on possible outcomes. You let the FSA terrorists win, you give a terrorist organization (soon to become one anyways) access to military and Chemical weapons. You let the Assad Regime win, then you have a legitimate, though oppressive, government that cooperates and respects international law and is supported by the Russians. Furthermore, why would it be America's place to choose? It is Russia's ally, so if anyone was to intervene without approval of the U.N., it should be Russia. President Vladimir Putin said it correctly: any unsanctioned attack on Syria should be viewed as an act of aggression. America has been invading with impunity for too long. Iraq was one that America absolutely went AGAINST United Nations' will.

For a country that champions Human Rights and Sovereignty, we sure love to invade without permission and do not respect the organization we helped create for the purpose of peace. Globalization, or the world becoming one great unified culture, is not going to be possible while our country and others like us consider ourselves "exceptional". When it comes to the Syrian debate, I am so disgusted with the American warmongering that I almost took down the American flag waving outside our house and replaced with the flag of the Russian Union.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Kind of a one sided debate...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro along with arguments due to the fact his opponent is an idiot
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
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: Ug. Why do people make 1 round debates?
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 didn't use punctuation right, and even repeated Russia twice in the same sentence, which looks and sound grammatically terrible. Pro definitely explained himself better.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I don't believe the US has any obligation to intervene in Syria, but cons argument was overly simple, highly unlikely, and unsupported. Pro was wise to mostly stick to refuting cons unlikely scenario and took the debate.
Vote Placed by LevelWithMe 3 years ago
LevelWithMe
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
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: I don't know what Con was expecting. Argument: Pro made a more thorough, thought out position, and provided a rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
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: Never make a sense round debate. Call it two, and have first round be acceptance only... Anyway pro shot down the nuke threat, then explained how wars actually happen. In simple terms she schooled him.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
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 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: Pro showed that Russia won't nuke us and showed why we should intervene. S&G to Pro because all Con had was one run-on sentence.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
S4V4N7ConservativePoliticoTied
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: 1 round debate that pro easily owned.