The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.
Debate Rounds (4)
After that the structure is as follows.
Round 2: Constructive cases
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Final statements. Any new ideas should not be voted on. Anything not previously mentioned in the debate is not allowed.
I am typically and LD debater so if my opponent is let me know and we can have even more fun. Otherwise, accept and we will still have a great debate! (:
Governments that block the aspirations of their people, that steal or are corrupt, that oppress and torture or that deny freedom of expression and human rights should bear in mind that they will find it increasingly hard to escape the judgement of their own people, or where warranted, the reach of international law.
Today I strongly affirm, the United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.
I would like to present the following definitions for today"s debate:
Promote: To contribute to the growth or prosperity of (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people and closely linked to the rule of law. Democracy and democratic governance in particular, means that people"s human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected, promoted, allowing them to live with dignity. (United Nations).
Ought: Implies the idea of morality. That we morally must do something.
My debate ultimately revolves around the idea of preventing dehumanization to help society progress. I argue that United States ought to be promoted because it gives the people human dignity which helps their society.
Contention 1: Affirmation promotes human rights, which builds human dignity. Ultimately, human rights in the Middle East are lacking which leads to lack of human dignity as the government treats certain individuals and groups like means. There are countless violations of human rights in the Middle East. One examples of many being Asmaa Mahfouz who attempted to peacefully congregate and ask for human rights. During her first gathering of only 4 people she said "No one came except three guys"three guys and three armored cars of riot police" and officers that came to terrorize us. They shoved us roughly away from the people." Her government was denying her human rights like freedom of speech and assembly, messaging that they could be treated with brutality. Also, in 2015 Iran executed several people for crimes such as loosing religious faith. When a government is allowed to provide such a brutal punishment in order to keep power completely unchecked they absolutely dehumanize every single person in the region with the clear message that they cannot have opinions and should only obey the oppressive laws. Democracy clearly helps with the clear tie between democratic nations, rule of law, and human rights. In and of itself democracy can"t work without human rights because it leaves the people with no power. Yet, even if you the Negative argues that democracy could fail preventing me from this impact human rights, and ultimately human dignity, are actually still impacted. The promotion of democracy creates notions of equality and signals to individuals that there inherent worth is valued empowering the people. For example, the single election in Egypt, regardless of its outcomes, improved the society by proving that they are being oppressed and that that is morally wrong. Stability under oppressed and dehumanized people is more dangerous and takes priority over instability with people with intrinsic self-worth because it promotes progress instead of barely surviving. If the United States, being the oldest democracy and the world leader in democracy can do anything to help the Middle East progress instead of digress than we ought to do it.
Contention 2: Affirmation promotes equality. It does this through notions of pluralism and elections, directly signaling that every life is valued. On top of that, democracy makes it more difficult for corruption and oppression. The promotion of democracy returns human dignity to minorities and women, and provides security to individuals. For examples, in the Middle East there are 3 major religions which Islam having more than 8 distinct religious sects. The inherent problem is that a totalitarian government requires a hierarchy lending itself to the problems of dehumanization and oppression. This is especially important in the Middle East where there is historical distrust and modern fear between groups. For example, in Lebanon 75% of the population said they felt insecurity in their religions longevity. Democracy and democratic advancements like elections gives everyone a voice and takes away totalitarian rule. Even if there is a ruling majority starting out, it still provides signals to every individual that they are indeed equal, which is priceless for progress and welfare. according to SEP, "When people participate in making decisions" they are called upon to justify themselves and they are forced the think in terms of the interests of others." This mentality leads to unity and greater good.
Contention 3: Affirmation reduces structural violence. Structural violence refers to systematic ways in which social structures harm or otherwise disadvantage individuals. This could include poverty, abuse, or any social system that harms society. As stated in my first contentions, the promotion of democracy counteracts abuse and counteracts hierarchy. Another example being poverty in which the human dignity allows poverty to become less localized on any particular group. This kind of violence ultimately takes the most precedence for 2 main reasons. For one, structural violence makes it easier for people to degrade other people because it is worked into the social system and the norm, ironically making it less noticeable but more detrimental. Compared to all other forms of violence or atrocities structural violence has no respect and makes the violence socially permissible. Another huge impact is that its effects are far more exponential because it make violence in general permissible. For example, the holocaust started as structural violence and dehumanization before it became direct genocide and war.
Now I would like to address all of my opponents points:
In response to my opponents point that democracy is failing in our own Society I would just like to point out that our country is far better off than countries in the Middle East. Obviously a perfect system is impossible but If I can still retain that democracy promotion would help the region more that we ought to look to that. Also, even if you do believe that our society is not well off, the fact remains that in the Middle East they don't even have basic human rights and they are constantly being treated less than human.
If you are actually concerned about economy and such like my opponent talks about, than you will be voting PRO today because there is no way for that to happen without human rights. Even if democracy doesn't work, our very promoting signals that someone cares about their region and shows that someone is treating them like actual humans. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO IMPROVE SOCIETY.
If you vote for my side today you are voting for a far better system and an operatunity for improvement. On the CON they are only showing you the minute downsides that are already present in those societies too so they aren't really major voting issues.
My opponents second point is saying that we ought not promote democracy because we have no right to. However, when people are being treated like they are in the Middle East that is something that goes beyond borders. It's not like we are imperialistic freaks trying to force an opinion on them. We are just trying to promote basic human goodness and allow them a say in their government so they are treated like actual people. On top of that, Iraq's favorite example of a new government is actually the USA. Democracy isn't really foreign to the people. If you don't buy that, then look to the Arab springs, Tunisia (where democracy is working), or the Green Rebellion in Iran. They are all displays that democracy can work.
Finally, don't let my opponent get away with rude remarks. This is so unethical and ruins the quality of this overall debate.
For all these reasons I see that Aff is the only way to vote in this debate.
i already said my part and you clearly dont know much , and dont know too well how the world works if you think that
taking this form of government and putting it into play in a different country can be a recipe for disaster.. as i said i stated why i think this way ... in my opinion i shouldn't even have to go in depth because it is that obvious..
but you can keep thinking youre smarter for keeping your cool or for writing out long responses but someone with intelligence would realize that that is simply not true.
I am done with your childishness... you clearly can not even handle my attitude towards you when you put up a ridiculous argument and you think people are going to be able to control the backlash that comes from trying to step on someone's toes in their territory? get real...
America has no right whatsoever to push their ideas on people its all they do these days, not to mention they don't have their sh*t together so they have some nerve telling another country how to run itself... the elites in America will be the ones that profit from this system ..and only the elites really.. and yet you think we have a good system.
This is why i can not have a rational debate with you, you have shown you are clearly not even near capable of having one. So this is my last rebuttal to you, you can go ahead and try to debunk my argument or say i have no point to make, the people with sense will realize youre wrong, like the ones in the comment section already have in some cases
When your are voting in todays round there are a few things you need to consider.
1) Actual points: All my opponents attacks ands defenses of his own points are in short, that my points are dumb. Besides being completely unethical you are going to have to favor my own points in which I have defended well. Even if you believe my opponent, you are going to have no choice but to vote Pro or else you are supporting unethical debating. On top of that, when it comes down to the actual debate, I am the only one with any progress.
2) You are voting on a debate. Treat it like such. You are shaming this sight, and the intent of the debate. The intent of debate is to have thoughtful discussion and get to the bottom of important issues. My opponent has disgraced this intent so you can not vote for them in today's debate.
3) He says his points are obvious. Vote for my opponent if this is enough justification for you. Or look to every thing I have written and realize that if my points really are as offensive, outrageous as my opponent says, at least I have debated them. Since my opponent doesn't retaliate with any real logic to anything I've said this shows he can't really say anything to them. Saying i need to "get real" doesn't really reflect badly on my points but shows that my opponent can't protect his own with real justification.
Finally, the fact that my opponent can only insult me means there is not actual debate behind his side today. Ultimately, in today's debate you only have one opting and that is to vote PRO.
Sole_Executioner forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.