This House Would Impose Democracy!
Let's see now....the score's 1:1 (well, technically 1:0, but only because Krit agreed to a tie before I conceded). Krit defeated me in a greatly passionate topic, yet he played devil's and still lost to me in a communism debate. Today, we stand to defeat each other, in a topic that's exactly the middle--I'm not passionate about it, and he's not devil's advocate!
Who will win? Will I finally beat the unbeatable 18Karl? Will Krit/karl finally set the score right and prove that he is a better political debater than me? We'll see!
If you begin round one, then leave last round empty. If you don't start round one and choose to merely accept instead, then you can have last round for arguments.
I take the liberty to define impose.
This democratic stuff is boring. >.<
Anyhow, let's start off with the classic argument:
1. Equality and justice for all
With democracy, everyone will have equal rights. Equal voting rights, equal participation. They'll elect the best politicians in their mind, and the population will obtain the most effective politician. If the politician doesn't do very good, then next term, bam, a new and better politician! It's a flawless system; the best of them all. In fact, democracy is "the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination".  This self-determination is a right that should be given and not taken away. These people should be able to elect the leader they want, and be a check on abusive governments.
2. A more peaceful government
There has not been war in a democratic government for 200 years as studies have found. This can be contributed to the people's "restraining opinion of war", and the checks and balances within the democratic structure. Not only so, democratic government have similar cultures and values. They all encourage diversity and individual rights. It would not make a lot of sense to attack a culture similar to one's own. Obviously imposing democracy on a non-democratic government would make democratic governments more friendly and welcome to them. That is not to say that the democracy is not friendly to the non-democratic governments. No--democratic governments are friendly to everyone. They have lots to lose--their people's support, their structure, their wealth--democratic governments most likely wouldn't take the risk. In fact, a study actually finds that democratic governments can create areas of peace. "Relations between democracies lead to the creation of zones of peace and security communities where the expectations of violent conflict between the units are virtually nil" .
Onto you 18Karl.
 Evans and Newhman, p.120
Here I shall outline several criterions in order to provide a stable basis for the future of this debate, and possibly my case. I shall here outline several analytical axioms that would naturally result from the definitions of ‘democracy’ and ‘imposition’ as has been defined in R1 by both sides.
However, before I do this, I shall provide conditions upon a neg. ballot. If I were to prove that imposed democracies are unable to be beneficial for societies (i.e they fail) then I have negated the resolution. If I were able to prove and demonstrate that imposed democracies are immoral, then I have negated the resolution.
Ob. 2: If “impose” were I impose x on situation y, then situation y was exclusive of condition x until the imposition.
Ob. 4: If I wanted to impose d onto country a, which currently has a d1 regime, then the word impose entails that regime d1 did not yield to condition a, which meant that I had to impose d on country a.
This framework provides a clear view of the true nature of an imposed democracy, and provides a framework for all discussions of “imposed democracies” in the future. With this, I shall present three main contentions that ultimately conclude with the only viable conclusion; that imposed democracies are failures and immoral.
1. Immorality of Imposed Democracies
Analytically, if something is imposed, then the ones who are the subjects of the imposed do not have the rights to choose it, and this violates the rights of liberty. Here, I am making the argument that some people might want democracy, whilst others might not. Essentialist teleology assumes util., and ultimately, if one people were to want democracy, then via the util. principle of the “greatest good” the people would not need any imposition of any type of democracy.
b) Imposed Democracies are Illegitimate
2. Imposed Democracies do not work
Let me start out with this:
" In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
--The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 29. [http://www.un.org...]We see here, everyone should have equal rights--in a democratic society. Once more, I must stress that democracy is the only government that stresses on people's equalities and rights. Now, why should imposed democracy be put regardless of what the people want? Well, people deserve equal rights, whether they want it or not. Should we deny people the rights to life and liberty even if they don't want it? Of course not; they deserve it (unless in circumstances where the law is broken, but that's not the case here). Imposed democracies are better than no democracies. Some governments may have politicians so corrupt and powerful, or have people who have no idea how to rule a democratic society, that even if they need the equal rights, they cannot obtain these rights. That is why a foreign force must help the people there to establish democracy. With good experience, the foreign force would be excellent, and much better than the original people in establishing democracy.
My opponent gives an example of a corrupt society of imposed democracy. First, let me start off by saying that the US imposed democracy on Iraq for clearly different purposes. http://www.worlddialogue.org.... states, "Iraq has always been about much more than democracy. This is especially true for an administration that came into office downplaying the value of democracy promotion, nation-building, and other elements of “soft power”. Rather, Iraq was about projecting hard power—to rid the United States and the world of a perceived threat. Iraq’s previous use of chemical weapons, its capacity to produce nuclear and biological weapons, and the fear that these could be provided to international terrorist organisations, particularly al-Qaeda, were the main drivers of the US-led military intervention in Iraq. If it were not for the ambiguity surrounding Saddam Hussein’s possession of these weapons, Iraq would not have been singled out for invasion among the world’s forty-five or so remaining autocracies.
Democracy only took centre stage as a rationale for the Iraq invasion once Saddam was toppled and no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found. With evidence lacking of WMD, WMD facilities, or a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, democracy emerged as the best justification to sustain support for the costly engagement." We see here, this weakly established democracy was used for an entirely different strategy than most other imposed democracies try to do. The US really wanted to get rid of the War on Terror, and the only way possible was to have this government that could gain "support for the costly engagement", as the source says. There are many--too many impedements within Iraq to make a strong democracy within that particular country. As http://www.forbes.com.... can justify, the main reasons that Iraq can't have a strong democracy is that it does not have a "sense of nationhood", and it has a "history of oppression", due to its neighboring countries it "is likely to remain a sectarian war zone", Islam has too much power over the country, and finally women by definition were unequal in the first place. Unless my opponent points out these shared problems with other countries, then Iraq is merely an outlier and in all other cases, democracy can be strong and easily imposed. HOWEVER this is not to say that democracy is completely ineffective on these "outlier countries", http://www.foreignaffairs.com.... clearly shows hope, especially in Iraq's adoption of the Parliament and democratic-voting style elections.
So far the opp. has accepted all preliminaries of an imposed democracy, so not much to be said here.
O1. "Peace" and Democracy
This is one of the most delusive assumptions about democracy; that it provides peace and tranquility to countries that have democracies with it. Need I raise example of how Athens coerced it's democratic sister cities into submission? After the defeat of Persian Invasions, the anti-Persian Delian League was turned into a de facto imperial state of this newly created Athenian democracy. It was because of this that Sparta soon launched invasions of Attica. This is not the only instance of this happening: in India and Pakistan, we can see two democracies go to war repeatedly and individually after even the slightest and most trivial skirmish. How can democratic governments be friendly to everyone when we have seen democratic United States of America go to war against Iraq? How can democracies like Israel still claim to be acting within the limits of their rights when they attacked Gaza in an attempt to retake and destroy the democratically elected Hamas-Fatah pact? Clearly, there are some huge flaws in the opposition's assertions that democratic countries are peaceful, for we have seen that throughout history, democracies and dictatorships have had the same proportion of wars caused by both forms of government.
O2. Justice and Equality for all
Equal voting rights is not justice and equality: this could be characterized by the fact that many nations have voted themselves into tyranny. To call democracy flawless is absurd; we are in the ever increasing process of piecemeal social engineering, and there is nothing that could be considered "perfect" Democracy is one of the least perfect forms of government that man has ever devised, in my opinion. Let us then say that this justice and equality is obtained: then I should say that there is no liberty between man? For the only just and equal society is socialism, where a man's mind is dictated by the society. The principles of open society is that a man may do whatever he likes as long as he bears the responsibility. Equality is only achieved via the violation of liberty of the rich.
Apart from this, we always come back to the issue of mob-rule: how is it just for the mob to decide the fate of those in the minority? Socrates died because of mob rule, not because he deserved to die. It was this mob-rule that ordered the deaths of 6 million Jews, and many more dissenders in the Nazi state. It was ultimately mob rule that led to Mao's Great Leap Foward campaign and many other mob-based campaigns that killed people.
O3. Imposed Democracy CS #1: Iraq and Afghanistan
Firstly, the opposition talks as if I dismiss the fall of the Neo-Ba'ath regime. I do not; however, my assertion is that imposed democracies failed, and I have used Iraq as my case example. Nevertheless, I shall respond to some of the points that the opposition asserted. His first assertion is that the Iraq War was much more than about democracy: I know, and we are not in a debate about the Iraq War, but we are in a debate about imposed democracies. The imposed democracy of Iraq, albeit it serves a wholly different purpose from "most imposed democracies" is still an imposed democracy.
The assertion that Iraq will have a stable democracy in the future is wholly hopeless. The origins of the Iraqi democratic state was imposed by a foreign force that was invading and occupying the country. All the opponent does is that he asserts my point that the Iraqi Democratic State failed miserably: however, he completely ignores my example about Afghanistan. I take this as a liberty to talk about Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is another example of a failed imposed democracy; during the recent elections, millions of voters turned up to vote, but found their votes invalidated. Afghanistan exemplifies one of the problems of an imposed democracy: it ignores previous preliminary conditions and sociological structure, which often complicates the issue. The issue of religion in Iraq was discussed: Iraq turned into a de facto mob-rule after the Islamic Dawaa Party (a Shia Islamist party) took power and oppressed the Iraqi Sunnis. The issue of Afghan democracy was due to "warlords" Prior to the Taliban, Afghanistan was ruled by "warlords" who controlled each territory. After the installation of the Taliban, these warlords were pushed and suppressed from power. However, after the overthrow of the Taliban, these warlords came back. Democracy is impossible in such an environment; these warlords began a campaign of civil disobedience, and 21st century politics quickly became feudal politics, which warlords regaining control of small "fiefdom" type states. The recent elections was an exemplification of a conflict between two warlords: Ashraf Ghani and Abdallah Abdallah battled for control over Afghanistan, only to find that a power-sharing government made by the UN was to reign. Because of this power-sharing, Afghanistan's development is literally put on a halt. Because of this, the Taliban and even the Islamic State is making inroads into Afghanistan and the weak central authority is still accompanied by huge corruption on the government side.
We can see many correlations between the case of Afghanistan and the case of Iraq: (1) an imposed democracy ignores previous sociological conditions, (2) an imposed democracy faces low/weak central authority, and (3) an imposed democracy is much more vulnerable to compulsive corruption than other types of government.
O4. Unjustified Nature of Mobocracy
Mobocracy cannot ever be justified, and is the worst form of government after anarchy. Mobocracy is often harder to protect against. In John Stuart Mill's words: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." How hard is it to resist the forces of the majority? I remember once that I was in a Model United Nations meeting, and via discussing the question of the Kurds, ECOSOC adopted two resolutions that undermined the whole nationality and independence of the Iraqi state. Is this just? Or perhaps should I say: was this moral?
It ultimately comes down to the fact that it is much harder to resist the majority than to resist the minority: in America, it was the majority of the whites in the Southern State that supported the Jim Crow laws. In Germany, it was the majority of the non-Jewish Germans that supported some type of anti-Jewish action. It was the majority in India that supported the anti-LGBTQ laws. Democracy got Socrates killed. If it were the minority who voted for the Jim Crow laws, then the majority could easily take up arms. If it were the majority that supported the Jews in their struggle in Germany, then the Holocaust would have never happened. If it were the majority that supported liberty for all, then they would have fought wholly against the actions of the minority: ultimately, it is much harded to be protected from mobocracy than tyranny. There is no defense for the minority in such mobocratic societies.
Even if the opposition affirms that these are cherry-picked examples, then he should comprehend the fact that many business tycoons, who earned their money in a lawful manner, are now facing progressive tax rates that attempt to redistribute this money to other people in which they have no obligations too. This is a form of mob rule: this Robin Hood program is called redistribution, and it threatens to redistribute the money of all who earned it. Is this just? The State is not Robin Hood; the state protects the "people" and not the "majority"
O5. Democracy can only come internally
The assertion that democracy cannot come in a dictatorship is a lie. We have seen many dictatorships fall in the face of overwhelming support for democracy: Egypt and Libya are recent examples, but we can go back and this could be observed throughout history. The English Civil War was an example of this; so was the American Revolution. The internal revolt against the French Kings, the "Prague Spring" and many other anecdotes seem to suggest that democracy can only come internally. The assertion that every country wants democracy, and no country should be exempted from "the spread of democracy" even if they do not want it, is a complete lie.
“To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive and not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is as little justifiable to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in any other respect.” This is a fundamental attribute of democracy; if democracy need be imposed, then the people clearly do not want a democratic society. In Syria, it would be absurd to impose democracy in the presence of such radical groups (like the Islamic State and J. al-Nusra) who ought to kill 30% of the population. That was why many Syrians chose Assad.
If one were to truly support democracy and elections, then one must support the right for the people to have a non-democratic form of government. What the opposition stresses is that he would allow for other countries to come into nations, and establish a rule of control that they want, and not necessarily the people! I can see no justifications for what the opposition and this resolution oughts to do de facto.
Apart from this, Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a further 3rd clause, which says the following:
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Upon looking at the Charter of the United Nations, the full implications of Iraq and Afghanistan in this field is not totally recognized. UN Charter outlines the exercise of this power within the realms of national independence and intergrity in it's first chapter.
Henceforth, I hold the resolution negated!
Sources in comments
Note that for two times in a row my opponent has included the sources in the comments. Thus, either the sources points should go to me, or the conduct point. You judges decide for yourself.
1. Democratic war
My opponent has still not refuted the facts I posed in round one. And even if SOME democratic nations war against each other, these are far better, and very minor compared to the conquests of absolute rulers. Take the mighty autocracy of Ottomans, ruled by the Sultan, for example...
That's a pretty dang big empire, if you ask me!
But now let's look at the more ambitous ruler, Napoleon, at his peak--
[source: http://constructionlitmag.com...] That's also pretty darn impressive!
But none of these empires compare to Alexander the Great--
But even all of these aren't impressive, for if you take the greatest warring empire of all time....
...these guys, their empire completely trumps these little empires (by comparison).
But alas, all of these NON-democratic governments, even the mighty Mongols, could not surpass the greatest empire of them all, expanding and conquesting through its two consuls....
The Roman Empire!!
Can my opponent name a single example of a democratic government that has been able to even remotely match up to Greece? Okay, not even Greece--even Napoleon's feat are hard to match up. I doubt a single democratic government has been able to take more than even 100 acres of land. These minor wars are nothing compared to these vast empires. Do you want a greedy ruler (or multiple greedy rulers) to have the power and authority to expand their empire and war until their soldiers are way too tired or their empire is too big for their own good? I think not. The collapse and power vacuum would be far too much for the citizens and the empire to last. A strong democracy is what is necessary, and no more empire is needed than how much the people--or the representatives of the people--think they need.
My opponent confuses my argument and only takes part of it. I did concede partially that US's strategy may not have been awesome, but it was the best possible justification under the circumstances, and I even said... "HOWEVER this is not to say that democracy is completely ineffective on these "outlier countries", http://www.foreignaffairs.com... shows hope, especially in Iraq's adoption of the Parliament and democratic-voting style elections." My opponent clearly ignores the fact that I never said "absolute monarchy, or anarchy, or another government is better", and my opponent also fails to propose a single counter-plan that might have worked better than democracy in the case of Iraq. Thus, I win this argument.
To counter Afghanistan, my opponent concedes that the main reason democracy cannot be imposed is because of the Warlocks. But can we destroy the Warlocks using absolute monarchy? The Warlocks AND the people would hate that idea. Anarchy would also be terrible for the people, and they would not support us at all. The only good counter plan is imposed democracy. If we encourage the people by not only using financial aid but soldiers as well, they can rebel effectively. The warlocks, against such a huge rebellion with the force of the people already there PLUS foreign military, would have no choice but to give up. Imposed democracy is the best solution possible within Afghanistan. And even if the power-sharing can be weak at times, keep in mind that when the different branches try to work together to a common goal, they can be just as efficient and quick as a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has to listen to the parliament.
My opponent talks about the majority versus the minority. Again, especially within the US, the constitution grants minority the same rights as the majority. Even the "majority" of the population can turn into the "minority" at times. Besides, aren't the elected representatives a "minority" of the majority too?
18Karl concedes that "the state protects the "people" and not the "majority". Thus we see, the state tries its hardest to do what's moral for the overall people, instead of merely the majority. Thanks for the free point, my opponent!
My opponent states that the American Revolution is an example of democracy coming from internal. But I doubt the Americans could have won without the help of the French army (which is experienced, trained, and can help them learn combat very well). The outside sources certainly boosted the Americans forward, and pushed against Britain so hard that Britain basically let the Americans be independent. Without the French, either the Brit's would have won, or there would have been a long, long stand-off. Why shouldn't we help other countries in need? Again, I stress this, I've already said this in round one, some people can't stand for themselves if the government is too powerful compared to the people. In these cases, The government must step in and help the people. Freedom and justice overpower need of independence. Yes, you should let the country hold off on its own if it can. But most times, they just need a little push, a little help, to make things more moral and better. Even just a little imposement of democracy can help any country.
Judges, please look over the arguments carefully before deciding the winner of this debate. But as I see it, I've fulfilled my burden of proof while negating my opponent's false claims (that have little evidence to back themselves up). Vote PRO.
Firstly, we see a debate-wide acceptance of the following terms: imposed democracies are foreign imposed democracies, and have no way or intention in which any man would have any say in the implementation of the system of governance. Moreover, we see more concessions upon the points that the Iraqi democratic state was a failure, and Afghanistan's democracy was also another failure.
Secondly, I asserted, and the opposition has agreed with me, that when a democrat asserts the "people" they talk about the majority, not the people in question here.
O1. Democratic War
I shall refute the facts of R1 then: this view is wholly fallacious. To say that democratic nations do not wage wars on other democratic nations is to ignore the fundamental fact that asserts that there is a certain dualism between the government and the people. The government (the system of governance) makes no difference at all to the wars that the nation wages. The people do. This can be seen in the case of India and Pakistan: these countries are two functioning representative democracies that go to war with each other repeatedly. Ultimately, "your country is never wrong" is a fact that holds true for many people in a democratic society. Accordingly, a democratic country has a higher sense of patriotism than non-democratic countries. Gallup polls show that 1/3rd of all Americans could be described as "highly" patriotic. Australia, another well functioning democracy, seconds America as the most patriotic nation in the world. Patriotism leads to ignorance of a country's crimes in another country; it leads to imperialism that cannot be seen is wrong.
Now upon this point of democratic war, we see a view that is cherry-picked. The opposition's assertions that a democratic society do not go on major colonial campaigns are wholly based upon this idealization of democracy, and is wholly a false assertion. The largest empire to have ever existed in the world was a democracy. In 1688, the country of the United Kingdom became a representative constitutional monarchy. Soon, there was virtually no region in the world that was left untouched by the United Kingdom. Whilst the Mongolian Empire controlled only 22% of the world, Britain controlled 23% of the world at once, and literally sustained it's rule for an extended period of time.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Empire map.gif" />
This is the extent of the British Empire; it was spread over all the continents, and there was no country by the 21st century that was not effected by British imperialism. And these include democratic countries: the War of 1812 was a war of democracies. Now the opponent wants me to name a democratic government that has been able to match up with the Greek Empire. I shall do this in a more clear manner.
Behold, the Second Colonial Empire. In 1938, it controlled at least 5% of the world's population. During the Vienna Conference, the Second French Colonial Empire gained the most land. During the French Revolutionary Wars, it could also be said that two democracies (England and France) went to war with each other. But perhaps this is not enough; perhaps the opposition is not convinced by these two examples of democratic imperialism. Our next example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...; width="489" height="247" />
Yep, it was the United States of America that took Phillipines on the verge of it's independence. It was the USA that annexed Hawaii, that brought Russia, and that invaded Iraq. Now, I do not make the argument that dictatorships are more peaceful than democracy. However, I argue here that democracies and dictatorships make no revelence to the wars that they will get involved in.
O2. On Iraq and Afghanistan
The opposition's concession here is to the point that the new imposed democratic Iraq did not do well, but there were perhaps no alternative. This is ignoratio elenchi to the main point; we are not talking about "dictatorships" but "democracies" Nevertheless, I shall respond to the main arguments posed by the opposition.
Now, firstly, was democracy really the best plan for Iraq? For such a divided nation would have been immediately torn into sectarian conflict between the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Yazidis. What was better? I argue that the secularization of the Ba'ath Party, and close cooperation with the Iraqi Ba'ath would have done much better than the expulsion and disorganization of the Ba'ath Party. In terms of governance, I argue that a transitional government led by a secular Ba'ath Party, supported by the United States and other foreign troops, to lead to referendums and an eventual transition to a liberal democracy, would be much more effective than imposing democracy when institutions were not built before hand. This counter-plan is much more feasible than a democratic state for the following reason. (1) A secular state ensures state-wide equality for everyone, (2) a secular state ensures that Iraq stays Iraq, and (3) the Ba'ath Party always enjoyed minimal support (at least) in the area. This type of transition was highly effective in the case of Fiji, where a military government soon gave way to a democracy. This junta-type government was also highly effective in the case of India and Philipines. In the case of India, the idea of independence was led by the eventual transition from British rule to a democracy of the people. In Philipines, the American "dictatorship" (benevolent it was) soon led to a well-functioning democracy until 1965. We have, in this history of the world, never seen a successful imposed government. So much for the democratic part of the imposition of a democratic state.
The opposition ignores the fact that (1) during the rule of the Taliban, these warlords were suppressed, and (2) this warlord dilemma happened after the power vacuum immediately after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union attempted to impose a government in Afghanistan.
From these two main facts, it can be said that a monocratic rule of a party, supported and regulated by a foreign force, would eventually led a transitional government which would create institutions for the creation of a stable democracy. Such occupations do not take a decade, but years, even centuries, to succeed. The case of Afghanistan was not an outlier; democracies face a deficit in the decision making process, which makes it ultimately difficult for a single party to come out with some type of solution to a perceived problem. This collectivism is good after stability has been procured, but not so effective in the early stages of the democratic transition. Such was the case in Afghanistan. Due to the lack of central authority, partly because of corruption, but partly because the Afghan Peace Party and the Party of Liberation (a moderate Sunni party) had huge ideological contrasts in the National Assembly, the Taliban soon enjoyed huge support with the Afghan lower class, especially the Aryan Pashtuns. The exclusions of the Pashtun also gave the Taliban more power support, and the Pashtuns have historically been for the Taliban.
Now, what I propose here is some type of an moderate Islamic republic in a process to ever reach democracy. Strong central authority, supported by a presence of both foreign and domestic troops, were to guide the country to democracy, and not back to corruption. This transitional council would do much better than a democracy, as it would incorporate Afghanistans, not just western-supporting Afghans.
We see two main problems in an imposed democracy, accompanied by one huge one: (1) the division of the nation due to lack of identity. In Iraq, the Sunnis, Shias, Yazidis, and Kurds who all previously lived peace by peace in the Ba'ath government (before Hussein) soon had huge disagreeements and contrasts in post-Hussein Iraq. In Afghanistan, the exclusion of Pashtuns from power ultimately led to huge divisions in parliament, as the Pashtuns were the majority. The (2) second problem is corruption: Iraq and Afghanistan are one of the most corrupt nations on the face of this planet. Imposed democracies have this sense of a lack of legitimacy that allows government officials to corrupt the nation without any fear of punishment. There is no unity, so to say. The last problem is the most serious: the (3) lack of central authority in an imposed democracy, for the people simply reject the legitimacy of such governments.
O3. France and America
Firstly, France supported America. The opposition talks as if France imposed democracy onto the American people. This wasn't the case:
Between 1778 and 1782 the French provided supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington’s forces in Virginia. French assistance was crucial in securing the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781.
The final assertion that some people will not defy injustice for long is very fallacious, and wholly built upon presumption. Any defiance of injustice must come from within, not without. The most successful democracies have been built this way: the corrupt nature of the reign of King Charles I led to the first and one of the most successful democracies in the world, and it was not imposed, but self-brought. In France, it was the unjust nature of the monarchy that brought democracy. In the US, it was the need to regain liberties after losing them in the face of injustice. No democracy has ever been built upon a principle of imposition; Iraq and Afghanistan are the best examples of imposed democracies failing. There is a difference between supporting and imposing; Russia is supporting Syria in it's fight, but Russia is not imposing Assad upon the Syrian people. Supporting does not imply intervention, the main principle of coercion.
With these conclusions, I consider the resolution to be negated. Vote CON.
Citations in Comments
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|