The Instigator
Booba
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

There is no revolution 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 4 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 27208
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Booba

Pro

There is no revolution in Syria,because many opponents of president kill innocent people for example the rebels which called Free Syrian Army kill many people and bombing the cities,moreover those rebels financed by United States and Europe such countries like France,United Kingdom and NATO.The Assad's Army has taken NATO's equipment and American-Israel weapon from rebels.Many mercenaries every day come in Syria from Turkish borders in order to help rebels.Opponents of Syria want to the same scenario like in Libya-but without success.If rebels come to the ruling of Syria,the country can collapse,because Syria is secular country and Assad is guarantor of stability and security.
ConservativePolitico

Con

My opponent's first round argument does nothing to disprove the state of revolution going on in Syria.

Revolution - anoverthroworrepudiationandthethoroughreplacementofanestablishedgovernmentorpoliticalsystem bythepeople governed. [1]

The Syrian civil war started when anti-government protests erupted into violence. The source of the original protests and the ensuing civil war was President Assad. The people want Assad gone and are fighting for such.

In Syria there is an ongoing attempt to overthrow the government and replace it with a new form of government. This overthrow was started and being fought by the Syrian people, the people governed by Assad. Therefore, the conflict in Syria is a revolution. It fits the definition.

No matter what else is going on, who's taking who's stuff, what neighboring countries are getting mad etc, has nothing to do with the source and nature of the conflict at hand. Syria is in civil war started by an attempted overthrow of the government and is therefore in a state of revolution.

I welcome an attempt to disprove this definition.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Booba

Pro

1)As some people know, Syria enter in resistance block - there are SYRIA,IRAN,HAMAS,HEZBOLLAH and Syria took Russian position in internation relations ,moreover Syria's big friend - Iran ,who suspected by Western countries for his nuclear weapong programm.
2)I want to say it jut conspiracy,how can u say about rebels Al CIAda?!-it just a tool of the West countries and NATO in order to intervention.
3)When revolution starts-there were a provocations from opposition side.
4)Bashar Assad was legal president,because nearly 97,6% Syrian civilians vote for him in Presedential elections 2007
ConservativePolitico

Con

Refutations:

1) Support by outside powers does not disqualify a conflict from being a revolution. The Americans had help and support from France, does that mean we didn't have a revolution? Syria is not fighting outside nations, it is fighting internally. That's why it is a revolution. Internal fighting. Whether Russia or Iran helps Assad out is irrelevant because the nature of the conflict is still an internal revolution.

2) The West hasn't intervened in Syria and has shown little interest in doing so. Why would we start a civil war to cause more instability in the region? To what end? This is not a conspiracy. It is just a bloody result of the Arab Spring. Turkey wants NATO and the EU to intervene due to border violence but they have yet to do so.

Also, even if someone were to cause the revolution, it is still a revolution.

3) Yes, revolutions are usually provoked. The Americans were provoked by the British. The Syrians were provoked by Assad. You usually don't have a revolution without some kind of provocation or else why would you want to revolt? Provocation does not disqualify the conflict from being a revolution.

4) Things change. The world is not static. Obviously Assad is no longer as popular as he was in 2007. This, again, does not mean the conflict in Syria is not a revolution.

The definition of a revolution can be applied to Syria thus the conflict in Syria is a revolution.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
RFD:

Since some people don't really think voting for the obvious contender is reasonable, I will provide a simple RFD to my vote (forgive me for this being late).

Con never proved his case to begin with in R1. Pro masterfully defined resolution, and then proved how the events in Syria correspond with that definition (i.e. a revolution is an attempt or success in overthrowing the government, and pro correctly stated that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was trying to overthrow the government).

Con counters with extremely weak arguments and already lost the debate even if pro had not responded in R2. I will go through each of the four R2 arguments now.

For con's first argument, it is obvious - and pro pointed this out - that this is incorrect. Pro won the argument with the American Revolution analogy. Also take the example of the Spanish Civil War, an even more relevant example. For con's second argument, he makes a potentially valid argument, but pro correctly countered by saying that the west does not want to intervene in Syria, with the exception of Turkey, and that is only to protect its border. For con's third argument, it was just completely erroneous. A revolution would only occur because of a provocation. Con actually hurts himself with this argument. For con's final argument, it is again an erroneous one. Coups have been known to happen at the spur of the moment, and although pro eluded this, he points out that countries and people's opinions can change.

Obviously, every single one of con's arguments is countered, and pro sufficiently proves his case to satisfy his BoP.

I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes of my valuable time having to write this. I mean this is one of the most obvious non-forfeiture votes there is.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Ron-Paul, improve your RFD. Seriously.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
That sounds more like a forum post than a debate topic,
Posted by Booba 4 years ago
Booba
ok,it was my first debate.I was mistaken in my title - i wanted to show the title "what's really going on in Syria",but i wrote that "there is no revolution".So i want to say that my opponent is American and America actively participate in this Syrian conflict,that's my oponnent say another information which support America and Opposition of Syria.The debates would be interesting if i was not mistaken in title of this Conflict,because I have many arguments and view in order to support president's side,because our mass-media and magazines in political view supporting the regime and show that opposition are terrorist financed by USA and NATO.My ConservativePolitico opponent has another point of view ,because he is an American and see information from American sources which supporting opposition and has another point of view.So in conclusion it would be interesting debate if was not mistaken in "title" and HERE WOULD BE AN INTERESTING DEBATE WHICH HAS A TWO POINT OF VIEWS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES WHICH SUPPORT TWO SIDES,HE IS AN AMERICAN AND I' M FROM FORMER SOVIET COUNTRY.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
BoobaConservativePoliticoTied
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: Counter votebomb emospongebob527. This debate doesn't really need an RFD.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
BoobaConservativePoliticoTied
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: CVB Pon-Raul the Muslim Libertarian.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
BoobaConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con effectively proved his case in Round 1, and then toppled Pro's rebuttals in Round 2. For example, Con showed that Pro's "provocation" point was irrelevant as revolutions are almost always provoked. Hence, arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
BoobaConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Easy vote.