The Instigator
PotBelliedGeek
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Incognito13
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

We should bring democracy into Saudi Arabia

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 3 votes the winner is...
PotBelliedGeek
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,030 times Debate No: 40732
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

PotBelliedGeek

Con

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals and conclusions

I will argue that it is wrong for us to try to turn Saudi Arabia into a democratic nation. My opponent will argue that we should try to turn Saudi Arabia into a democratic nation.
Incognito13

Pro

I shall accept this debate today for todays framework on my side would be:
The religious and economic importance of Saudi Arabia to the 1.2 billion Muslims and the international community at large, democratizing Saudi Arabia will have effects throughout Arab and Muslim countries and beyond. Like other peoples, the Saudi people wish to be productive, live in harmony with each other, with other peoples and will to embrace democracy.
Debate Round No. 1
PotBelliedGeek

Con

My argument is that the Saudi people do not want democracy, and are entirely satisfied with their way of life. Having lived in Saudi Arabia for years, I can attest that the general attitude of the population is that they love their king.

During the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia was the only Arab nation that did not erupt in protest. With a few minor outings by Shiite minorities, one might argue that the rest of the people were just too afraid to protest. That is refuted by the fact that the people did indeed take to the streets, not in protest, but in celebration of there king and government. Here are a few youtube clips of those celebrations.







These people love their way of life just as much as we Americans love ours. To force our style of government on them is like the Russians forcing communism on us, claiming that they are freeing us. It is wrong and oppressive.

That is my pitch. I believe that since my opponent is proposing a change to what is already established, then BOP is on him.
Incognito13

Pro

Attacking my opponents case:

My opponent's only argument is saying people like the way they are but that is easily refuted saying that: Protesters have held a demonstration against the repressive regime of Al Saud in Tarout Island of Saudi Arabia.Saudi Sunnis, Shias want to replace monarchy with democracy: Analyst. On Thursday evening there was a demonstration in the city of Qatif (Al-Qatif) in the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia. The protesters participating in the demonstration in Al-Qatif showed several interesting posters and banners.
One of these banners showed the written words "The people want the fall of the House of Saud" and meanwhile there are also several videos of the protest in the Saudi Arabian city of Qatif (Al-Qatif) in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia with its totalitarian dictatorship online at YouTube and other video platforms.
"Our primary goal is the overthrow of the House of Saud, the clearing of the land of their filth, and the establishment of a new democratically elected government," say the activists of this demonstration against the House of Saud.The mass media of the Western community of values R03;R03;follow the strict line to ignore these peaceful protests for basic human rights and democracy in Saudi Arabia

And if you don't buy that i have other arguments saying that:

THE SENSITIVE SAUDIS: THEY WANT DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE ELSE. In a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post, David Ignatius characterized the underhanded Saudi interferences in the affairs of other Muslim and Arab countries as ""partly to keep turmoil outside their borders. It"s what the divide-and-conquer British used to describe as a "forward" strategy." Many informed and pro-democratic-reform Saudi natives, including a small number of royals, have been trying to warn the international community, especially the Saudi regime"s Western supporters and protectors, of the Saudi"s dangerous domestic and foreign policy objectives and their implications for the Saudi people, the Greater Middle East and the international community. Given the pro-Saudi author of the Post"s opinion piece and his paper"s political orientation and appeal to the current Administration and other Democrats in the State Department and in the US Congress, it will be a big mistake not to remind the autocratic Saudi ruling princes that destabilizing other societies to deflect attention from their oppressed people"s demands for change will have consequences.

No going on to my case:

Contention 1: Utilitarism.

Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, analysts, policymakers, and pundits have debated whether democracy will actually take root in the Middle East. Even in nations such as Egypt and Tunisia where autocrats have been ousted, there is still considerable uncertainty and anxiety about what kinds of political systems will replace them. One thing, however, is clear: People in Arab nations want democracy, and they don"t just support a vague notion of democracy " they want to live in a country that has specific rights and institutions.

At the Pew Global Attitudes Project, our surveys have consistently found considerable support for democracy in Arab nations and our most recent poll again finds a strong desire for democracy in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan. Big majorities in these countries say democracy is the best type of government. In Egypt for example, two-thirds believe democracy is preferable to any other kind of government, WHILE 70% WANT A DEMOCRACY.

Contention 2: There will be democracy for abrab in the future.
Historically speaking, what is now happening is without precedent in the Arab world. For the first time, Arab authoritarian regimes have been toppled, and others are threatened, by mass demonstrations calling for freedom and democracy. Previously, Arab regimes changed through military coups and other sorts of putsches, never through popular revolutions.
Yet, while most Arab regimes now appear threatened, only two authoritarian rulers " Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt " have been actually deposed so far. Theirs were relatively "soft" autocracies. Much more oppressive and ruthless rulers " Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, Bashar Assad in Syria, and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen " though seriously threatened, have proven far more resilient (up to now) in suppressing popular opposition. Even in tiny Bahrain, the Sunni minority has, for now, succeeded in maintaining its rule over the Shia majority, albeit with military help from neighboring Sunni-led countries.
Debate Round No. 2
PotBelliedGeek

Con

1. "Attacking my opponents case:

My opponent's only argument is saying people like the way they are....."

The format laid out by the instigator and agreed to by the contender (implied by him accepting this debate) was that R1 is acceptance, R2 is arguments, and R3&4 are for rebuttals. My opponent has violated this layout by including rebuttals in R2. The voters should keep this in mind when voting on conduct.

2. "but that is easily refuted saying that: Protesters have held a demonstration against the repressive regime of Al Saud in Tarout Island of Saudi Arabia.Saudi Sunnis, Shias want to replace monarchy with democracy: Analyst. "

"On Thursday evening there was a demonstration in the city of Qatif (Al-Qatif) in the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia. The protesters participating in the demonstration in Al-Qatif showed several interesting posters and banners. One of these banners showed the written words "The people want the fall of the House of Saud" and meanwhile there are also several videos of the protest in the Saudi Arabian city of Qatif (Al-Qatif) in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia with its totalitarian dictatorship online at YouTube and other video platforms.
"Our primary goal is the overthrow of the House of Saud, the clearing of the land of their filth, and the establishment of a new democratically elected government," say the activists of this demonstration against the House of Saud.The mass media of the Western community of values R03;R03;follow the strict line to ignore these peaceful protests for basic human rights and democracy in Saudi Arabia"

I will note that my opponent plagiarised these quotes form the following sources:
http://www.syrianews.cc...
http://www.presstv.com...

While PressTV appears to be a run of the mill media outlet,my opponents second source, syrianews.cc, is a poorly disguised blogsite masquerading as a reputable news source. It is run by ardent supporters of the Syrian rebels, if not by the rebels themselves. All of this information can be gleaned just by reading the website home page.

To give the voter a sense of this website used as a source by my opponent, here is a headline:

Obama’s Death Squads Strike Syria, Again: 9 Killed, 30 Seriously Wounded in Attack on School Buses and School

"Obamas Death Squad" refers to a separate rebel faction whom they accuse of receiving aid from America. They identify the victims as martyrs. The voters should keep these things in mind when voting on sources.

3.THE SENSITIVE SAUDIS: THEY WANT DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE ELSE

I do not know what my opponent is trying to do with this title he plagiarised from this American tabloid, but it seems to say that Saudis don't want democracy. Fancy that.
http://spectator.org...

My opponent goes on to cite an opinion piece plagiarised from this Anti-Saudi blog (which Identifies KSA'a major problems as women's rights, Islam, minarets, Oil Power, and shifting sand) in an attempt to illustrate the supposed underhanded nature of Saudi politics.
http://www.cdhr.info...

I have two points of criticism. First, the source has an obvious, outspoken bias (equivalent being using an Anti-American hate site as a source for America's foreign policies) that ruins their credibility. Second, this is an opinion piece, illustrating the opinion of an American novelist. Hardly applicable to the feelings of the general Saudi population.


4. I would like to point out here that my opponent has cited protests of Shia minorities (the videos were of shia, not sunnis, and how I know that would be a topic for another discussion. Here I'm appealing to ethos in saying that I lived among those people for years, speak their language, and know how to identify different ethnic/religious groups.) in two eastern cities of Saudi Arabia. He then uses these protests to state that the Saudi People hate their government. This is the equivalent of filming a white supremacist protest in Wyoming then using that footage to convince other nations that "The American People" want blacks out of the country. The fallacy is obvious.

5. "Contention 1: Utilitarism.
More plagiarism from this source:
http://www.pewglobal.org...
Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, analysts, policymakers, and pundits have debated whether democracy will actually take root in the Middle East. Even in nations such as Egypt and Tunisia where autocrats have been ousted, there is still considerable uncertainty and anxiety about what kinds of political systems will replace them. One thing, however, is clear: People in Arab nations want democracy, and they don"t just support a vague notion of democracy " they want to live in a country that has specific rights and institutions.

At the Pew Global Attitudes Project, our surveys have consistently found considerable support for democracy in Arab nations and our most recent poll again finds a strong desire for democracy in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan. Big majorities in these countries say democracy is the best type of government. In Egypt for example, two-thirds believe democracy is preferable to any other kind of government, WHILE 70% WANT A DEMOCRACY. "

Not only did my opponent plagiarise here, but he added his own numbers into this quote.

Here my opponent is basically saying that most of the Arab Nations want democracy. I will not argue that Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and other Arab nations don't want democracy. I argue that One of the Arab nations does not want democracy. I am arguing that Saudi Arabia is the exception to the generalization made in this unsourced quote.

6. "Historically speaking, what is now happening is without precedent in the Arab world. For the first time, Arab authoritarian regimes have been toppled, and others are threatened, by mass demonstrations calling for freedom and democracy. Previously, Arab regimes changed through military coups and other sorts of putsches, never through popular revolutions.
Yet, while most Arab regimes now appear threatened, only two authoritarian rulers " Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt " have been actually deposed so far. Theirs were relatively "soft" autocracies. Much more oppressive and ruthless rulers " Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, Bashar Assad in Syria, and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen " though seriously threatened, have proven far more resilient (up to now) in suppressing popular opposition. Even in tiny Bahrain, the Sunni minority has, for now, succeeded in maintaining its rule over the Shia majority, albeit with military help from neighboring Sunni-led countries."

This clause illustrates that my opponent is simply copying and pasting anything he can find that talks about democracy and the Middle East. Not only does this not relate to the topic (should we bring democracy into Saudi Arabia), but he didn't even bother to check the accuracy of this excerpt. Qaddafi has bean dead for years[1].

Conclusions: My opponent fails to illustrate why we should bring democracy into Saudi Arabia. As stated before BOP is on my opponent since he wished to alter what is already established.

I encourage my opponent to stop randomly copying and pasting without checking for accuracy, reliability, or relevance. I also advise my opponent to properly cite his sources rather that resorting to plagiarism.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...;
Incognito13

Pro

Well my opponent says that i have violated some rule.

First off, There is no rule in debate saying that in FORM. That is not what this debate is about. It is about attacking and making a case.

And second of all my opponent said i do plagiarism but first off have you been to a really debate tournament. I guess thats a know with the knowledge he gave me. That is what you are suppose to do in debate. Find evidence and print it out. So you attacking my whole argument saying " Ohh he plagiarized OMG his arguments don't count" But no, that is what you are supposed to do in REAL DEBATE.

My opponent also said that my evidence is poorly disguised but first off, PressTV is like CNN but in Arabia. Its basically saying that CNN is poor disguised. Exactly so his refute to my argument is invalid because Press TV is like CNN but in Arabia.

And my opponent also said that the headline for my evidence is Obama"s Death Squads Strike Syria, Again: 9 Killed, 30 Seriously Wounded in Attack on School Buses and School

"Obamas Death Squad" refers to a separate rebel faction whom they accuse of receiving aid from America. They identify the victims as martyrs. The voters should keep these things in mind when voting on sources.

But i am sorry i don't think it said that: What is says is that: Saudi Sunnis, Shias want to replace monarchy with democracy: Analyst. Protesters have held a demonstration against the repressive regime of Al Saud in Tarout Island of Saudi Arabia.

And you could even check that out ON THE WEBSITE. I think my opponents eyes must be checked by a doctor.

Ahh and my opponent also said that Saudis don't want democracy. Fancy that.
http://spectator.org......

Wow i must read that sight again because what is says is that the royal in Arabis will shoot people if they protest and that will stop protests in Arabia. BUT, what I'm saying is that the people want a democracy. My opponent really needs to read the evidence one more time.

And my opponent also said:
I have two points of criticism. First, the source has an obvious, outspoken bias (equivalent being using an Anti-American hate site as a source for America's foreign policies) that ruins their credibility. Second, this is an opinion piece, illustrating the opinion of an American novelist. Hardly applicable to the feelings of the general Saudi population.

But first NO evidence is bias. Press TV is a company just like CNN but in Arbia how could you say that is bias. Also Thes are oppoinons from people.. AHH THAT WHERE HE CONDRADICTS HIMSELF BECUASE HE AGREES THAT THESE OPINIONS ARE FROM PEOPLE RIGHT? SO THE PEOPEL DO WANT DEMOCRACY! SO THAT POINT ON HIS SIDE CONCEDS.

Ha and my opponent forth point says: Oh i lived with people there in the east so i know everything about arabia.. Uhh Arabia does not want a democracy. I know this because i lived there for 1 day. And i know the language there because ouse google translate: That is how i interpret this argument. And first of all the eastern states where he lived for 1 day has protest. I think he is lying about living there and if i fancy giver me some evidence that you lived there.

My opponents attacked my case but burn hat argument. He has not even been to a debate tournament so i have been to one and that means that in debate you have to print out evidence and bring it to debate. That is debate showing evidence and crushing your opponent case. Sorry but my opponents attacks to my argument fails to stand. Also my oponened said that Qaddafi has bean dead for years. But HA, EVEN THOUGH HE IS DEAD HIS LEGACY STILL LIVES AND HIS THOUGHT AND OPNIONS ARE STILL SPREAD AROUND THE PEOPLE. So his argument concedes utterly.

And advide to my opponent: Think before you type.
Debate Round No. 3
PotBelliedGeek

Con

1. "And second of all my opponent said i do plagiarism but first off have you been to a really debate tournament. I guess thats a know with the knowledge he gave me. That is what you are suppose to do in debate. Find evidence and print it out. So you attacking my whole argument saying " Ohh he plagiarized OMG his arguments don't count" But no, that is what you are supposed to do in REAL DEBATE."

Although my opponents bad grammar make it quite difficult to understand his meaning here, I believe he is trying to accuse me of ad hominem. My answer is is this:

I do not attack my opponents intelligence, integrity, or character in order to negate his arguments. I point out his plagiarism to the voters because they are to judge him on proper use of sources. I also point out that my opponent is not presenting an argument of his own, but simply copying anything that talks about democracy in the middle east.


2."My opponent also said that my evidence is poorly disguised but first off, PressTV is like CNN but in Arabia. Its basically saying that CNN is poor disguised. Exactly so his refute to my argument is invalid because Press TV is like CNN but in Arabia."

My exact quote is as follows:

"While PressTV appears to be a run of the mill media outlet,my opponents second source, syrianews.cc, is a poorly disguised blogsite masquerading as a reputable news source. It is run by ardent supporters of the Syrian rebels, if not by the rebels themselves. All of this information can be gleaned just by reading the website home page."

I will underline the exact clause in question:

"my opponents second source, syrianews.cc, is a poorly disguised blogsite masquerading as a reputable news source."

I encourage the voters to compare my quote to the one my opponent ascribes to me. It becomes abundantly clear that my opponent did not properly read my arguments before responding.


3.And my opponent also said that the headline for my evidence is Obama"s Death Squads Strike Syria, Again: 9 Killed, 30 Seriously Wounded in Attack on School Buses and School

"Obamas Death Squad" refers to a separate rebel faction whom they accuse of receiving aid from America. They identify the victims as martyrs. The voters should keep these things in mind when voting on sources.

But i am sorry i don't think it said that: What is says is that: Saudi Sunnis, Shias want to replace monarchy with democracy: Analyst. Protesters have held a demonstration against the repressive regime of Al Saud in Tarout Island of Saudi Arabia.

And you could even check that out ON THE WEBSITE. I think my opponents eyes must be checked by a doctor.

Again, I will present the clause in question as a direct quote from R2:

"To give the voter a sense of this website used as a source by my opponent, here is a headline:

Obama’s Death Squads Strike Syria, Again: 9 Killed, 30 Seriously Wounded in Attack on School Buses and School

"Obamas Death Squad" refers to a separate rebel faction whom they accuse of receiving aid from America. They identify the victims as martyrs. The voters should keep these things in mind when voting on sources."

Allow me to highlight this clause:

"To give the voter a sense of this website used as a source by my opponent, here is a headline"

I clearly state that I am about to present a headline taken from the same website my opponent uses as a source for his arguments. I do not claim that this headline is used by my opponent in his argument. This is a textbook example of the Straw Man Fallacy. I also suspect that my opponent resorts to ad hominem in suggesting that I get my eyes checked.


4. "Wow i must read that sight again because what is says is that the royal in Arabis will shoot people if they protest and that will stop protests in Arabia. BUT, what I'm saying is that the people want a democracy. My opponent really needs to read the evidence one more time."

Here my opponent reemphasises his this tabloid as evidence. I have two responses.
1. This is an emphasis on the idea that Saudis are ok with democracy as long as it stays out of their nation. here is the title one more time:
THE SENSITIVE SAUDIS: THEY WANT DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE ELSE

2.This is a tabloid. This is not evidence. I encourage the voters to make note of this.


5."Also Thes are oppoinons from people.. AHH THAT WHERE HE CONDRADICTS HIMSELF BECUASE HE AGREES THAT THESE OPINIONS ARE FROM PEOPLE RIGHT? SO THE PEOPEL DO WANT DEMOCRACY! SO THAT POINT ON HIS SIDE CONCEDS."

My opponent says this in relation to this clause:
"this is an opinion piece, illustrating the opinion of an American novelist. Hardly applicable to the feelings of the general Saudi population."

I will explain this in simpler terms. This is what ONE AMERICAN THINKS and does not relate to the Saudi people. Secondly, it is a piece on Saudi foreign policy, not on form of government.

6."And advide to my opponent: Think before you type."

I thank my opponent in sharing this piece of advice with me. In return, I will dedicate the rest of my character count to sincere advice addressed directly to my opponent.

Firstly, I will say that this is not sarcastic, and I am not patronizing. I am sincere in what I am about to say.

Incognito13, as it stands, you will utterly lose this debate in a devastating defeat. You may not have a chance of fixing it in your last argument, but these guidelines will help. If they don't work for you here, then at least save them for later debates.

1. Do not get angry. Your last argument was a heated rant. You made no sense in anything you said, and you made personal accusations against your opponent. If you do that, a lose is guaranteed.

2. There is nothing wrong with copying and pasting, but you must cite your sources. The voters will check you on this.

3. Check your sources for relevance. If you are going to paste a source, please make sure it is actually talking about the debate.

5. Carefully read your opponents arguments. If you rush, then you will not understand what your opponent is saying, and you will end up embarrassing yourself.

6. Check your grammar and spelling. that makes a huge difference with the voters.

That's all I'll say. Follow these guidelines for your next argument and you might get some votes on your side. Good Luck.

In closing, my opponent failed to illustrate that we should bring democracy into Saudi Arabia. BOP was on my opponent, and he failed to present.

Incognito13

Pro

I thank you for your advice but i do not fall. I will continue with my arguments with why i do not utterly fail this debate but in fact win.
This debate will decide on my two point:

1. As what we are fighting on this debate today is about that we should bring democracy in Saudi Arabia. Should we not? But my opponent and i were fighting about what people think. And that is what this debate is really based on with our arguments. But one of my arguments still stands saying that the people opinions say that they want democracy but my opponent says its one guy from social medica but :http://www.voanews.com... says that social media can bring democracy in the midde east in which Saudi Arabia is in the middle east.
2. Secondly the topic here says we should bring democracy into Saudi Arabia and since i difine we as american citizens http://www.thewire.com... says that president Obama hopes to have democracy in the middle east using some of his ideas that he is using in which that means president obama is want represents the U.S in which we should bring democracy into saudi Arabia.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
PotBelliedGeekIncognito13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided better sources and presented his arguments more coherently than Pro. This debate has left me somewhat conflicted, and I'd definitely like to see it again!
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
PotBelliedGeekIncognito13Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: because reading is too boring
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
PotBelliedGeekIncognito13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Granted both of these cases were presented well, no one actually swayed me one way or the others. Both contenders matched each other evenly and offered rebuttals to the others arguments. All were valid points and well grounded. The one thing I must offer to Con however is S&G and sources. Pro had a multitude of noticeable spelling errors. In addition to this he was extremely lacking in sources. Con had way more sources all throughout the debate and were reliable to boot. Therefore these are the only 2 points i can award.