The Instigator
DanT
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
grace.elizabeth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The US should go to war with Syria

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
DanT
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,127 times Debate No: 37280
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

DanT

Con



Rules:
1.) No Ad Hominem Attacks
2.) Dismissed arguements will be considered dropped


Debate Format:
1st round: acceptance only
2nd round: Arguements / no rebuttals
3rd round: Rebuttals against 2nd round arguements / no arguements
4th round: Defense against 3rd round rebuttals & closing remarks / no new arguements or rebuttals
grace.elizabeth

Pro

**This is the first time I've used this, sorry if I mess anything up**

I believe the US should go to war with Syria because we set the standards for human rights. America is the only country founded on human rights and we should defend that right, not only to our citizens but to everyone not lucky enough to have been born in the US. If we let a government massacre their own people without consequence, it may make other countries think that they too can get away with murder.
We can go to war with Syria without facing any doubt of winning. We have unarguably the best military in the world and could beat Syria no matter what the scenario. Since this war poses no threat to US civilians, I see no reason we would not hold the Syrian government responsible for their actions.
Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Con

Reminder: Debate format

As mentioned in the rules;

1st round: acceptance only
2nd round: Arguments / no rebuttals
3rd round: Rebuttals against 2nd round arguments / no arguments
4th round: Defense against 3rd round rebuttals & closing remarks / no new arguments or rebuttals

Syrian Sovereignty

Chemical Weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Seven states are not party to the convention, and Syria is one of those seven states.[1] Waging war against Syria over the use of chemical weapons is a violation of Syrian Sovereignty. The Obama Administration has respectively stated that the Casus belli is the enforcement of the chemical weapons ban, but Syria is not bound by the ban. 98% of the world has no right to force their policies on the other 2%; if the purpose of the war is to enforce the CWC, it would be a violation of Syrian Sovereignty.

If you take away the Chemical weapons ban, the only reason to go to war would be to institute a regime change. It is not the place of the US to institute a regime change, nor is it the place of the US to serve as the world’s police. If the US went to war every time a dictator started a purge we would be in a constant state of war. It is not our place, and it is not our responsibility.

Alliances

Syria has powerful friends, and an attack on Syria would threaten the security of the United States. Syria has the support of China, Russia, and Iran. [2] If we attack Syria it could be disastrous to the US economy, and it might start WWIII.

Economics

War is economically disastrous; war destroys capital and kills potential labor. War also leads to the misallocation of resources, resulting in a loss of economic welfare.

In regards to oil and gas prices, the US imports roughly 3,000 barrels of oil from Syria per day. [3] If we wage war on Syria, it could cause a spike in oil and gas prices.

Syria’s allies could also pressure the US economically. The US conducts frequent trade with Russia and China. Out of the $5 trillion of US debt owed to foreign countries, we owe $1.159 trillion to China and $142.5 billion to Russia. [4]

War of Aggression

Syria has not broken international law, and if we attacked Syria the US would be breaking international law. Wars of Aggression are outlawed by international treaty, and if we launched a war against Syria we would be violating international law. [5]

1.) http://www.opcw.org...

2.) http://www.npr.org...

3.) http://www.eia.gov...

4.) http://rsc.scalise.house.gov...

5.) http://untreaty.un.org...

grace.elizabeth

Pro

grace.elizabeth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Con

Pro presented no case for me to refute
grace.elizabeth

Pro

grace.elizabeth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
grace.elizabeth

Pro

grace.elizabeth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
well this sucks
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
DanTgrace.elizabethTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: >.< lol
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DanTgrace.elizabethTied
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: Pro forfeited, leaving Con's arguments unanswered.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
DanTgrace.elizabethTied
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: FF, arg!
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
DanTgrace.elizabethTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF If I get some free time this week and you wanna debate syria with me, I'd be more than happy to send you a challenge