The Instigator
mria24
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Joebreezii
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The US military should 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 1 vote the winner is...
Joebreezii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 49578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

mria24

Pro

1) Innocent bystanders have been attacked and killed from inhumane methods of warfare like using barrel bombing attacks like in January 2014.
http://www.bbc.com...
2) The August 2013 chemical attack on Damascus showed that the Syrian government had chemical weapons that contained the nerve agent which killed 1,429 people.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
C) The United States should go to war with Syria.
Joebreezii

Con

P1. Innocent bystanders die everyday in many countries and killed from inhumane methods, doesn't mean we have to risk American lives for every bad thing that happens in the world.
P2- Instead of going in with military actions to seize these chemical weapons, the President gave a safer alternative to allow Assad to give up its chemical weapons. http://www.examiner.com...
P3- Intervening can have consequences because we don't know who is leading the rebels, there are al-qaeda, hezbolah, and extremists who eat hearts of dead Syrian soldiers. http://www.israelnationalnews.com...
C- The United States shouldn't get involved in Syria.
Debate Round No. 1
mria24

Pro

P1. If there were a couple of innocent bystanders being killed then maybe it would not be worth going to war but this has been a conflict that has led to the death of more than 250,00 people as stated in the last report from the Human Right Council in 2013.
http://www.ohchr.org...
P2.Thus far, Syria has not meet with the agreed deadlines that were set. If this were to continue then war against Syria would be permissible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
P3. This is why we need to go to war. As mentioned in your source for premise three, they are using people to fight during the war and do not take into consideration the actions of the government to stop their actions. So, they still believe that they will be able to join jihad even if there is intervention by the government. The people that are leading the attacks have done heinous crimes that affected their own people and possibly one day do something that will affects us like having chemical weapons that could be used against us (P2).

Conclusion: The United States should go to war with Syria.
Joebreezii

Con

P1: The risk of thousands of American lives is not worth intervention. We could possibly have the same outcome as the situation in Somalia. We wouldn't want to risk a repeat of Somalia. http://www.pbs.org...
P2: The deadline is in June. And they are speeding up the process in order to meet the deadline. Diplomacy has a much stronger appearance then force. http://www.pbs.org...
P3: They are not using people to fight the war. There are several groups with in the rebellion. We would be intervening blindly without know which group we are aiding. As you stated, "The people that are leading the attacks have done heinous crimes that affected their own people and possibly one day do something that will affects us like having chemical weapons that could be used against us". how can we these people who do heinous crimes side by side with American soldiers? We can't.
Debate Round No. 2
mria24

Pro

P1. There is a possibility that the same situation could happen in Somalia but we wouldn't"t know. It is better to try to help them then to stand by as thousands of people continue to die. To not risk the lives of thousands of lives would be the right term but to say American lives rather than just lives in your last argument is like saying Syrian lives are not worth the intervention. I know this might not be the argument you are making but that is what it seems like. If we are to send aide to the Syrians then we could save a lot of lives instead of having them die since many would not have the right equipment, skills, or resources to survive during this conflict.
P2. Your source was from March 4th while my source was from March 19th and yes they are progressing and have removed almost half of their stockpiles but it is not certain that they will be meeting their deadline once again. Also, diplomacy is not stronger than force and this is a perfect example. As stated in the article you provided for P2, "Given delays since the lapse of the two target dates for removal, it will be important to maintain this newly created momentum" There second deadline was April which they did not meet. Whether they meet their June deadline is not certain but what is certain is that diplomacy does not have a stronger appearance than force.
P3. I agree that it is essential to know who your enemies are in order to know who is committing the crimes but just because we don"t know now does not mean we should not try to find out who are the leaders of these groups, as well as helping the people from Syria to prevent them from having to go through hardships. As for the last question you asked it is a bit unclear. I understand that there are groups that are fighting together but there are still people that are not involved in the groups and are just trying to live to see a day were there will be no more conflict. These are the people that American soldiers would be fighting to protect and yes we would be losing lives but at the same time we would be saving more lives by ending the conflict sooner.
Conclusion: The United States should go to war with Syria.
Joebreezii

Con

P1: If there is a possibility the same situation that happened in Somalia could happen, like you said, then is best not to find out. We should help humanitarianly, but not military. More deaths is not going to solve the problem. Let the country work it on its own.
P2: You said" yes they are progressing and have removed almost half of their stockpiles" We can conclude that half is better than none. The article states as you already stated, " it will be important to maintain this newly momentum" We can see they are making an effort of diplomacy that is slowly working. June has not come yet, so we shouldn't speculate on the future, but the present and that is that half ,is better than none. An effort is being made.
P3: Essentially what you are saying is to go in blind and hope for the best. The American soldiers first duty is to protect us, Americans. We would lose more and nothing to gain. Diplomacy is our best bet in order to minimize casualties.
C: The United States should not intervene MILITARILY in Syria.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
mria24JoebreeziiTied
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: Pro argued on Military, Con on grounds of humanitarian assistance. Both were very general in their arguments, but I find Con to be somewhat more convincing. Everything pro said was "WAR,WAR,WAR" endorsing even blind intervention while Con touched on diplomacy, chemical weapons & the principle of non-agression. Again the debate was very general, both use similar arguments in terms of quality. Con wins due to his diverse and different arguments compared with the single "war" theme of pro.