The Instigator
anonymouse
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vbaculum
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in 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 4 votes the winner is...
vbaculum
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 994 times Debate No: 37700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

anonymouse

Pro

So I've been hearing from all the credible sources that the U.S. regime is backing terrorists in Syria. I think we are all against terrorism here, and the U.S. regime has been backing terrorism, so what kind of punishment should be inflicted upon the U.S. regime for their role in providing support to terrorists? Well, they did the same thing in Libya and got away with it. The western corporate media talks a lot about the war on terror, so here we have a regime who is obviously supporting terror. So if we're going to fight terror, then lets bring the supporters of terror to justice.
vbaculum

Con

The resolution uses loaded language to assert that the U.S. government is sponsoring terrorists in Syria.

This is rather like saying a man should be help accountable for beating his wife. Well of course he should be held accountable. The real question is: Did he beat his wife?

So Pro needs to argue that the U.S. government is sponsoring terrorists in Syria. This is absolutely essential since to do otherwise would be to simply state an uncontroversial legal fact, i.e., entities should be held accountable for committing crimes.

Definitions

Terrorist: A person who causes terror, especially to achieve political ends.

Sponsor: To provide financial or military support.
Debate Round No. 1
anonymouse

Pro

The Syrian rebels are using terror to achieve political ends, in other words regime change. To replace Asad with a pro-American puppet. The U.S. regime has been providing financial, and military support, so has the U.S. puppet regime of Saudi Arabia, and pro-American regime Turkey. The U.S. regime is training terrorists in Turkey and deploying them into Syria. The group of terrorists/rebels that are operating in Syria are the same bunch used in Libya by the U.S. regime against Gadafi. The terrorists/rebels wouldn't last a day without the support of the U.S. regime. I hate using sources, and I advocate everyone to think for themselves, and not let some corporate article tell you what to think. But here is a link talking about the Syrian rebels terror. Obama and the CIA both have talked about supporting the terrorists/rebels. http://benswann.com...
vbaculum

Con

Pro appears to be attempting to portray the Free Syrian Army as terrorists, though he doesn't name them explicitly.

The FSA was formed in 2011[1] by defectors from the Syrian Armed Forces[2] to protect pro-democracy demonstrators from the Syrian regime[3] and its demonic militia known as shabiha[4], and to remove the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad[3] from power. The FSA is a secular, non-sectarian, group composed of Kurds[5], Turkmen[6], Palestinians[7], and Druze[8]. It claims to have Alawites members as well[9].

Pro is attempting to conflate the FSA with religious groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and Jabhat al-Nusra - an Al Qaeda associate which has been deemed a terrorist organization by the United Nations[10], the United States[11], Australia[12], and the United Kingdom[13].

The one citation Pro deigned to proffer proves nothing - at least nothing relevant to the resolution. According to TIME (the original source of Pro's citation):

Because of the danger in reporting inside Syria, it was not possible to confirm the identity or political affiliation of the victim. Nor are we certain about the motivation of his killers. One eyewitness who lives in the area and was contacted by TIME a week after the beheadings said that the executioners were from ISIS, an Al-Qaeda franchise operating in Syria and Iraq.[14]

What Pro's citation does prove, however, is the religious barbarism that Syria has descended into thanks to a lack of will by outside forces to provide much needed (and asked for[15][16]) assistance in replacing the Assad dictatorship with a secular, democratic state. The lack of the US's will (and that of the so called "Friends of Syria") to intervene is creating a situation where there soon may not be anything left in Syria which could be called "civilized".

It's true that the US has given (an incredibly limited amount of) support to the Free Syrian Army.[17] But unless Pro can prove the FSA is a terrorist organization, using the definition of "terrorist" provided in round 1, or show that the US has supported some other terrorist organization in Syria, he has simply and flatly lost this debate.

[1] http://www.aljazeera.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://en.trend.az...
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.nytimes.com...
[6] http://www.google.com...
[7] http://ca.reuters.com...
[8] http://www.dailystar.com.lb...
[9] http://www.turkishweekly.net...
[10] http://www.aljazeera.com...
[11] http://www.aljazeera.com...
[12] http://www.abc.net.au...
[13] http://www.foxnews.com...

[14] http://lightbox.time.com...

[15] http://www.theguardian.com...
[16] http://www.indianexpress.com...
[17] http://articles.latimes.com...

Debate Round No. 2
anonymouse

Pro

The free Syrian army are terrorists, and Asad has said that the majority of them are foreign fighters. Many of whom are the same rent-a-thugs from Libya that the west used to overthrow Gadafi with. The free Syrian army are comiting the same kinds of atrocities that they were in Libya. There are also numerous reports from the corrupted western corporate media that these "so called rebel fighters" were broken out of prison and were labeled as terrorists even by western regimes. I love how you shills like to use all these corrupted sources. This list here, is 100% corrupt. All of them from corrupted regimes, and corrupted corporations. The more of these bogus sites you post, the more deceptive you look. I would not take the majority of the information of these sources seriously. There's a reason why they have multi billion dollar budgets, and it's because they're posting disinformation.

[1] http://www.aljazeera.com......
[2] http://www.nytimes.com......
[3] http://en.trend.az......
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com......
[5] http://www.nytimes.com......
[6] http://www.google.com......
[7] http://ca.reuters.com......
[8] http://www.dailystar.com.lb......
[9] http://www.turkishweekly.net......
[10] http://www.aljazeera.com......
[11] http://www.aljazeera.com......
[12] http://www.abc.net.au......
[13] http://www.foxnews.com......

[14] http://lightbox.time.com......

[15] http://www.theguardian.com......
[16] http://www.indianexpress.com......
[17] http://articles.latimes.com......
vbaculum

Con


The other day I listened to a debate (http://www.democracynow.org...) about the conflict in Syria and the legitimacy of the Free Syrian Army. It got me to thinking about all the ingenious arguments Pro might come up with for round 3. I thought a lot about how I would respond to these arguments and I was prepared for a serious discrediting of the FSA. So, despite looking forward to responding to some powerful arguments by Pro, I must admit that any concerns I had about the debate were put to rest after reading his third round.


Continuing his utter disdain for citing legitimate sources, he literal references the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to support an argument.


"The free Syrian army are terrorists, and Asad has said that the majority of them are foreign fighters."


It's great that you're such a big fan of this dictator, but I think the voters might consider him an illegitimate source.


The rest of his arguments are simply unsupported ipse dixits, calling me a "shill", more disdain for citing sources and, for whatever reason, copying all my sources into his round.


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Jebediah-Kerman 3 years ago
Jebediah-Kerman
Well I'm pretty sure the Constitution says that the people (ordinary Americans) can basically stop the current government and appoint a new government. Also, the people (ordinary Americans) elect their president, and representatives... This was implemented to specifically avoid tyranny (dictatorship).
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
and i use the word regime because the ordinary americans have little control of what the regime does. it's like a rogue dictatorship
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
more and more evidence is coming out that it was the rebels that used chemical weapons, and the u.s and or its allies provided it. turkey, and georgia are both u.s allies, and news is coming out thats where the chem weapons came from.

a mode or system of rule or government:
2.
a ruling or prevailing system.
3.
a government in power.
4.
the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.

thats what the dictionary says
Posted by Jebediah-Kerman 3 years ago
Jebediah-Kerman
anonymouse, why is the US a regime? What is your definition of a regime?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
anonymousevbaculumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons for voting are the same as everyone else's. Look below me.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
anonymousevbaculumTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro relied on personal insults instead of rebuttals. Arguments: Pro refused to actually refute anything near the end. Sources: Giving this to Con because he cited everything specifically, and Pro attempted to discredit him just by saying that his sources were "corrupt" for no apparent reason.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
anonymousevbaculumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Personal insults are inexcusable. Equally reprehensible in a debate is the total refusal to cite academic sources. Granted, it is necessary to do your own thinking; however, you must get the information you think about from somewhere. If you want to discredit a source, fine; but it is not sufficient to merely say that all of these sources are disreputable. Pick a specific source and analyze its individual bias, past misreporting, etc. Reputable sources can contradict, and you can find source to support your position. As it is, you rely on personal insults, and therefore fail to make any coherent arguments. Anonymouse, you rant, you don't debate, hence your loss.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
anonymousevbaculumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Fallacies, personal insults and sourcing issues require my score.