The Instigator
NPDAgeek
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kaushikdr
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The United States Federal Government Should Militarily Intervene in the Syrian Civil War

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 513 times Debate No: 44278
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

NPDAgeek

Con

Policy debate, we talk as if we were trying to pass a policy,

First round: Interpretation of resolution, specifics of plan, accept challenge

Second round: Construct argument

Third round: Argue arguments, but do not create new ones.

Final round: No new arguments, no more arguing, just conclusion summary and reason for winning.

I'm con so I won't state a plan, you will.

INTERPRETATION-The USFG should pass legislation or give executive orders to utilize military equipment and personnel to end conflict between Syrian rebels and Bashar al-Assads loyalists in Syria.
kaushikdr

Pro

All right,

I actually look forward to debating this topic as this is my first debate, and I personally believe that I have a knowledge of politics that is quite logic-based.

My interpretation of the resolution is that the US intervening in the Civil War means the US will dedicate a respectable amount of resources toward the problem, and start creating weapons for the war and be involved in the war for at least a month.

My plan would be to have the US exchange some resources right now such as military force, weapons, and resources for about half a year in exchange for money and support from the Syria government in future conflicts, as this would prove beneficial in our recession. The money would cover all the expenses of the troops as well as additional expenses for pure profit. This would also include the US being able to overthrow the Syrian government and gain a foothold with a US military base in the capital of the country. Syria will continue to be monitored by its neighbors.
Debate Round No. 1
NPDAgeek

Con

DISADVANTAGE. DIPLOMACY SPIKE

STATUS QUO.
A Currently the world views the U.S. as the self proclaimed policeman of everything
i. Iraq Invasion, military intervention without U.N. consent
ii. U.S. Navy in every port
B Russia recently urged Al-assad to stop killing
C U.N.S.C. blocked by Russian vetoes in many issues
i. U.N.S.C. inefficient responders to crisis
D We have opportunity to look like peace keepers for once and let Russia do something

CHANGE
L. We intervene in Syrian conflict
L. Russia sees us as antagonistic and untrustworthy
L. World sees us as brutal empire
IL. Russian plan no longer in effect
IL. Russia blocks more U.N.S.C. resolutions

IMPACTS
X)Russian diplomacy with U.S. decreases, propagates cold shoulder wars
X Syrian crisis doesn't get solved correctly, Russian plan was scalpel, U.S. plan was hatchet
X)International perception of U.S. empire causes less trust, trade, and talks with U.S.
X U.N.S.C. Becomes more clogged, U.S. given more excuse to intervene.
kaushikdr

Pro

kaushikdr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NPDAgeek

Con

NPDAgeek forfeited this round.
kaushikdr

Pro

kaushikdr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NPDAgeek

Con

NPDAgeek forfeited this round.
kaushikdr

Pro

kaushikdr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I debated for the University of California, Davis.

Yeah, I've heard "imperialism good" before. It's a fun position, if a little difficult to defend under scrutiny. I haven't tried it before myself.

It appears that you have a taker for the debate, so definitely don't delete it. I'll be interested to see the direction he takes.
Posted by NPDAgeek 2 years ago
NPDAgeek
NICE which school did you debate for?

I have come to expect non-debate-debaters on this forum, it is my experience thus far.

I suppose you are right about that, what I want to see is an empire good, russia bad scenario.

I've been debating this resolution for a while now as well, and have only once argued someone who just flat out said that empire expansion is good for the world, and it was fun... But I guess I should remove the resolution.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
...I've done debate in NPDA and British Parli for the last 9 years. I've had to take a difficult side on numerous issues, including gay conversion therapy camps, science being an opiate of the masses, and military intervention in nations that boggle the mind. I've argued Syria in multiple rounds, on the side you've proffered.

That doesn't mean I'm going to voluntarily select a debate where there are next to no options for arguments that don't have simple and dramatic turns. Within a round where there is limited time to craft an argument and citations are rare, it's simpler to make arguments that you can keep solid in the round. In online debate, I would at least want to not have to deal with the basic "unilateral action bad" argument, and thus focus on whether military intervention of any sort is an effective option. Having phrased it this way puts all of the burdens on me and gives you a litany of simple responses.

So no, I'm not chicken. I just favor a more equitable debate on a difficult and contentious issue such as this.
Posted by NPDAgeek 2 years ago
NPDAgeek
That is what makes it hard debate.

I am currently debating NEG on whether girls should play rugby, and NEG on the earth is over 10'000 years old. Why?

Because the fastest way to improve your debate skills is much like the fastest way to exercise your butt, find steep hills, and climb them.

Chicken?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I agree, difficult debates are fun. However, in this case, the main arguments I've used as a proponent of our involvement have been turned on their heads. Maybe if we were arguing non-unilateral intervention by the US, I might be able to better justify a few arguments, but that's still a steep hill to climb.
Posted by NPDAgeek 2 years ago
NPDAgeek
Hard debate is good debate guys.

There are always reasons for and against.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Sadly, while I would have been happy to engage in this debate even a few months ago, recent events have made it very difficult to justify intervention to end the war. It's a good topic, and I hope that you get someone who can capably approach the topic as a proponent.
Posted by HauntedShadows 2 years ago
HauntedShadows
I agree with XLAV, a very interesting topic, but I feel I would enjoy this one more as a spectator.
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
I like the topic, I'm just going to observe though. Looking forward on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.