The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Reformist
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

The U.S should militarily intervene in Syria.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Reformist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 88859
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

SocialDemocrat

Con

Burden of proof is shared.

United States of America-The country that wastes billions-trillions of dollars in military and tanks and ships that nobody wants, while people die on the streets because they can't afford healthcare. Is a rigged democracy/oligarchy, where the economy and legislation passed is almost completely controlled by corporations. Current president is Obama, whom is a great orator and has some intelligent progressive policies, but is an overall center right establishment president. Is in North America, and borders Central American and Canada.

militarily- in a military manner.

Syria- A country in the Middle East where a civil war is taking place currently.
Reformist

Pro

Well its been a little while since i debated so this should be a great debate. I will contend your USA and Syria definiton.

USA- The United States of America, in North America, current president Barack Hussein Obama.

Syria- Syria,civil war is taking place, current rule is Asad (You said it was a country in the middle east which is experiencing a civil war but that is also taking place in a lesser effect in Iraq as well)

I will also make my own plan for the invasion since my opponent hasnt specified a specific plan and depending on the type of invasion my opionon will change since a long term slow approach would, like my opponent probably have in mind, not work economically and militarily. I will be favoring the Blitz


The Blitz

The Blitz was first developed by the Nazis in order to conquer Europe and they succeded in doing that. In fact they had conquered all of Europe except for the Russians the British in only 9 months. The tactic was basically this: Massive air support followed by a quick, but large, sweep on tank and infantry forces in the country. To supplement the air support we would use drone strikes or like the Russians, carpet bomb. It doesnt matter. With these quick captures of key cities ISIS would lose not only vital postions in their land but also lose supply routes which will destroy their supply to Iraq and throughout different parts of Syria. Civilian loss would be high but that doesnt matter because morality isnt aded unto the arguement

Economy

The blitz technique would be very succesful because ISIS has 200,000 troops [2] and all of Europe has are in the millions. Yet Germany still defeated all of them. But what would you do after you destroy the ISIS threat? Democracy? No! You replace Syria with a fascist dictatorship that will act as the satelitte state of the USA. Because of this relationship the fascist government will give us trade such as oil and annual income so they stay in power.

So coupled with the fact the war would take less than a few months and the fact the governments would be supplying the USA money for decades to come the economic problems arent that big.

Free Healthcare

This isnt part of my arguement but my opponent seemed to take an interest in this for some reason in his opening statement. If a person dies on the street whats the problem? Less money to put him in the ground then give him free healthcare so he can mooch off the system. If healthcare is free people wont be desperate enough to buy it which means there will be more moochers

Sources:
[1]:https://www.ushmm.org...
[2]:http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Con

SocialDemocrat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Con

SocialDemocrat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SocialDemocrat

Con

SocialDemocrat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
SocialDemocratReformistTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
SocialDemocratReformistTied
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: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.