The Instigator
Xer
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

The U.S. should intervene in Darfur.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
pcmbrown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,662 times Debate No: 8536
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Xer

Con

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am against U.S. intervention in Darfur. My opponent will be in support of U.S. economic, humanitarian, military, or any other kind of intervention in Darfur.

Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate. To my opponent: just accept the debate in the first round, arguments will begin in the second round.
pcmbrown

Pro

Accepted. For clarification, as you oppose "any other kind of intervention in Darfur.", I will be focusing on military trade sanctions against Sudan.
Debate Round No. 1
Xer

Con

"Accepted. For clarification, as you oppose "any other kind of intervention in Darfur.", I will be focusing on military trade sanctions against Sudan"
-The resolution is "The U.S. should intervene in Darfur." Darfur is located in Sudan, but the resolution is not "The U.S. should intervene in Sudan." You can focus on military trade sanctions against Sudan if you'd like, but it would do you no good in this debate as it does not relate to the debate.
http://www.csmonitor.com...

We should not intervene in Darfur because:

1) The results of intervention can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it has left the U.S. overextended and in massive debt. America should help itself and its own people before ever thinking to reach out to poor countries around the globe.

2) The U.S. would further damage its image by going into Darfur.

3) The situation in Darfur does not pose a threat to international peace and security.

4) Humanitarian wars are almost never fought for purely humanitarian reasons. National interests and geopolitics are almost always the driving factor in military intervention. For example, in Kosovo, NATO had clear political interests at stake. There were no political interests in Rwanda though, so no major military intervention took place. The nations that were intervened purely for humanitarian reasons, such as in Somalia and Haiti, interest was quickly lost. In Darfur, there are geopolitical reasons to intervene, and that reason is oil. Would the U.S. intervening in Darfur in the name of humanity but instead going for the oil be right? Not at all. If the U.S. intervenes only for humanitarian reasons, will they stay long? Absolutely not. (1)

5) Humanitarian intervention is only a front for 21st century colonialism driven by neo-liberals set on the idea of the "perfect world" where free markets and free trade can exist everywhere. Their theory is that with democratic governments and open markets, countries will not go to war; which is the policy being used in Iraq today. The people of America have voiced their opinions. They do not like the policy in Iraq and it is foolish to think that they would like it in Darfur. Neo-liberalizing third-world countries is a policy destined to fail, and should not be used in Darfur. (2)

6) To intervene in Darfur is to destroy the importance of the Treaty or Peace of Westphalia that has successfully governed the world since 1648. The Treaty of Westphalia has been the guiding document on basic principles of state sovereignty for over 450 years. Simply discarding the Treaty sets up a very dangerous precedent on the future of state sovereignty. Is it fair for the U.S. to decide that using military action against Darfur is ok; but also decide that Russia invading Georgia to protect the people of South Ossetia is wrong? Of course it is wrong, and it is incredibly hypocritical. (3)

7) The U.S. is highly hypocritical in another way as well. The situation in Darfur is a direct result of European/Western colonialism/imperialism. Starting with Belgium in 1892, and followed by French, Italian, and British domination; the European powers left Darfur in the mess that they are in today. It's best that Darfur be undisturbed by Western influence as the past has suggested that it is a bad idea. (4)

8) Humanitarian interventions almost always do more harm than good. Nations often go into humanitarian interventions to stop violations of human rights and international law, but the exact opposite usually happens. The U.S. military will fight to win; they will not fight for peace. And in that process, something terrible will surely happen; something like the Abu Ghraib incident in Iraq could happen; or in Kosovo, where the airstrikes, while successful, caused the Serbs to kill and eradicate the Albanian Kosovars faster.

---Sources---
(1) http://www.fpif.org...
(2) http://www.globalresearch.ca...
(3) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(4) http://www.ired.com...
pcmbrown

Pro

intervene-to interfere with the outcome or course especially of a condition or process-M.W. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Therefore, any U.S. action which affects the situation in Darfur is "intervention". Military trade sanctions against Sudan would affect said situation.

My opponent is against any intervention in Darfur. Therefore, my case supports military trade sanctions only.

The Sudanese government supplies Arab militias. These militias have raped, tortured, and murdered millions of Sudanese. The United States must condemn these acts by halting any and all military shipments to Sudan.

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Xer

Con

"...Therefore, any U.S. action which affects the situation in Darfur is "intervention". Military trade sanctions against Sudan would affect said situation..."
-OK, fine. I don't want to argue semantics so I will let the point "Military trade sanctions against Sudan" count as intervention.

"The Sudanese government supplies Arab militias. These militias have raped, tortured, and murdered millions of Sudanese. The United States must condemn these acts by halting any and all military shipments to Sudan."
1) The U.S. does not supply Sudan with military weapons, other countries do.
2) The U.S. has no right being involved in a civil war, which is what happening in Darfur. (1)
3) See points 1-8 above.

-In case my opponent tries to argue that the situation in Darfur is not a civil war, but genocide:

---The situation in Darfur is not genocide.

---There is undoubtedly widespread violence in Darfur, but legally speaking, the situation is not genocide. Legally speaking, the legal definition of genocide means:
"…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (2)

---In 2005, the United Nations found that the government of Sudan was not committing genocide in Darfur. The U.N.'s International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur concluded:
"The crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central government authorities are concerned. Rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counterinsurgency warfare." (3)

---In March this year, the International Criminal Court put out an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. He was wanted for seven counts; they included five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes. Concerning genocide, the majority (five) of the judges of the Chamber, with just one judge dissenting, found that:
"…the material provided by the Prosecution in support of its application for a warrant of arrest failed to provide reasonable grounds to believe that the Government of Sudan acted with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. Consequently, the crime of genocide is not included in the warrant issued for the arrest of Omar Al Bashir." (4)

---The situation in Darfur is being over-politicized to create fear and attract attention. Thierry Durand, director of Operations for Doctors Without Borders says, "The magnitude of violence in Darfur has been huge, but it's not genocide … The situation on the ground has not been an emergency since 2004. The real problem is the dependency in the camps. But the whole thing has become over-politicized" (5)

My opponent has offered 1 reason why the U.S. should intervene in Darfur, which has been rebutted. I have provided 8 reasons on why the U.S. should not intervene in Darfur, which my opponent didn't even bother to argue, so they stand. The resolution "The U.S. should intervene in Darfur." is negated. Vote Con.

pcmbrown... thanks for the debate, I enjoyed it.

---Sources---
(1) http://www.globalsecurity.org...
(2) http://www.unhchr.ch...
(3) http://www.un.org...
(4) http://www.icc-cpi.int...
(5) http://www.latimes.com...
pcmbrown

Pro

The resolution reads "The U.S. should intervene in Darfur." Therefore, Pro may advocate any form of intervention, it is not necessary for Pro to defend every form of intervention. I am choosing to support the imposition of full military trade sanctions, and no other form of intervention. Therefore, my opponent's 8 contentions do not support his case, as they do not oppose military sanctions.

1. This is no reason why the United States should not impose full sanctions.
2. The United States does not involve itself in a civil war merely by imposing full military sanctions.

Government-backed militias have undeniably committed unnecessary acts of violence against innocent Sudanese civilians, and therefore, it is the duty of the United States to impose these sanctions, condemning Sudan, and protecting its citizens.

Thanks for the debate, and thanks for reading. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
"gay..."
That's homophobic. Don't say that you small town ignorant little fat.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
He didn't even argue his point... all he said was "military trade sanctions against Sudan." That is literally all he said. Didn't even try to counter my points. Gay...
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Before: Pro
After: Con
S and G: Con
Sources: Tied
Args: Con
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
XerpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by harlequin 7 years ago
harlequin
XerpcmbrownTied
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 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
XerpcmbrownTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
XerpcmbrownTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
XerpcmbrownTied
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