The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The UN should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia until it improves its human rights

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 286 times Debate No: 87979
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




It may not be a big news story, but Saudi Arabia's human right record is not brilliant. Personally, I believe the UN should impose sanctions thereby forcing Saudi Arabia to do something about it.

I know it may be difficult to argue against this, but if anyone is interested feel free to begin the debate.

Round 1 for challenge acception.
Round 2 for initial arguments.
Round 3 for rebuttals.
Round 4 for conclusions.


Yes, I agree with you. I believe that sanctions should be imposed on Saudi Arabia. However, for the purpose of this debate I must be in character to oppose this decision dissuade said sanctions from being implemented. I agree with your rounding structure and I will be posting ASAP once you have posted round 2. I wish you luck my friend.
Debate Round No. 1


My first point in this debate is that women are treated worse than anywhere else in the world. Just imagine - you are not allowed to drive, you cannot go and get an education without permission from a male family member, and you are expected to sit at home all day, cooking. That's what life is like for many Saudi women. The truth is, they face things that date back 2000 years, stereotypes from the Qur'an. I appreciate that if you are religious you need to accept the customs of your religion, but still using those now? Can women really be expected to keep on being treated like slabs of meat?

Second, there is absolutely no religious freedom. Sunni Islam is the only permitted religion. Shia Muslims are flogged, tortured, executed - you name it, the Saudis have probably done it to the non-Sunnis. King Salman should be allowing anyone to express any views (which will be elaborated on in another point). Again, I understand Mecca is out of bounds for non-Muslims, but to then cut off the entire population from being able to choose what they believe is just plain wrong.

This is a short point, but still very important. LGBT have no rights whatsoever. People make choices about their sexuality and and free to feel comfortable in their body, so to then tell them they are not allowed to do anything because of that is not right and should not be tolerated.

Lashings are very common in Saudi Arabia. In fact, they are dished out left, right and centre. The question the Saudi authorities need to be asking themselves is, 'why are we doing this?' Not only is it morally wrong, it is bad for the health. A British man was sentenced to lashes for home brewing alcohol. What's more, he's 74 and has cancer. I'm not implying it's only bad because he has cancer, but it seems worse than usual and doctors say it could well kill him.

My penultimate argument is that any criticism of the Government is not allowed, including protests. Quite simply, Saudis have no freedom of speech. They are being forced under by the royal family and are expected to behave under their laws, and cannot express their views on ways the country could be improved. Without the voices of the people to change that, sanctions seem like the only fees able option to give the Saudis the freedom they deserve.

Finally, migrants are being bettered by the Saudi officials. The majority of them are being deported, yet the rest go into detention. Only a few make it into Saudi without being told to leave or being put into forced labour. Many of these will be skilled workers who could boost the Saudi economy, but they don't take this into account. Humans have a right to choose where they work, where they live and a whole host of other things. They should not be treated like cattle.



ThinkOutsideTheBoxes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Seen as though the last round was forfeited, I will use this round to allow you to make your arguments - round 4 can be rebuttals instead.

Whilst I'm here, I'd like to point out my errors in the first piece:
I used the phrase 'and and free', which was meant to be 'and are free'.
Also, 'fees able' was meant to be 'feasible'.
Finally, 'bettered' in the final paragraph should have been 'battered'.

I hope to hear your arguments soon!


ThinkOutsideTheBoxes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I appreciate you may not have found time to construct your arguments, so I propose that you make them in round 4.


ThinkOutsideTheBoxes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 7 months ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff, so conduct to Pro. Con made no arguments and dropped all of Pro's, thus Pro wins arguments by default