The Instigator
ajawed3333
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kc1999
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

should Bashar al-Assad give up the war to free syria?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Kc1999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 54509
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

ajawed3333

Pro

Bashar al-Assad is stupid he should give up!!!!!!
Kc1999

Con

PS: I am not here to defend the Ba'athist Regime of Al-Assad, nor am I here to defend Al-Assad. However, I am simply here to prove my BoP.

MOTION: Should Bashar Al-Assad give up the Syrian Civil War?
POSITION: Contendor
BoP: Bashar Al-Assad should continue to fight in the Civil War


The Civil War in Syria has been one of the most controversial debate topics in the world. Before I present my cases, I would like to say what this debate is not.

This debate is not a debate on whether Al-Assad's fight is humane or not, nor is this a debate on whether Assad should continue to rule Syria with the iron fist he received. I want the best for the Syrian people; however, the best option for the Syrian people, or at least the most preferable one, is a democracy (for those of you who know me, I'm taking a devil's advocate stance on this). If Assad stops fighting and he gives Syria to the opposition, the rebels would create an Islamic Theocracy and implement strict Sharia (as well as launching a Campaign of Ethnical Cleansing), and if Assad prevails, we can pressure him to create a democracy.

Contention One: The Opposition isn't neccesarily what we see it as

Unlike Libya, Syria's opposition groups are a medley of Islamic Fundamentalists wanting to overthrow the government. As apart from the case of Libya, in which the opposition groups were actually freedom fighters, desiring for a liberal secular democratic regime to be installed, the case of Syria is completely different. In Syria, we have the leading Islamic Front, a Jihadist Group which supposedly has support from the Al-Qaida and many other terrorist groups. Since the installation of the secular government under the new Ba'athist Regime, Al Assad has attempted to reduce racial tensions that Arabs might have towards Kurds. However, the opposition side, the Islamic Front and many other groups in support of it, have revived this new conflict after the Battle of al-Ayn. This campaign, although shadowed by other campaigns during the civil war, is increasing in size. The Syrian-Kurdish Conflict has killed 3,000 people so far; if Bashar Al-Assad surrenders, this would result in the recognition of the new regime. The new regime (because they are Jihadists) would install a theocratic state based on Strong Sharia, much like Afghanistan during the 1980s under the Taliban. The new regime would also most likely wage a war on the Kurdish minority as they have already done before they came in power. This would lead to several massacres, like the ones the Iraqi regime under Hussein comitted on many occassions. Therefore, if we want to avoid bloodshed and ethnical cleansing, we are to support Bashar Al-Assad in this fight.

Contention Two: New Al-Qaida Breeding Grounds

Al-Qaida already holds considerable influence in the opposition groups of Syria. Recently, a Chechen al Qaeda commander, popular Saudi cleric, and a Ahrar al Sham leader spotted on front lines in Latakia, fighting with the Syrian Rebels. As Al-Qaeda gains a hold of power in Syria, the west is supporting the side which presents the most threats to it's tranquility and way of life. Comparing this to the case of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the West (aka the USA) supported the side which led to the rise of the Taliban, in which it's theocratic rule led to the creation of Al-Qaida and ultimately 9/11. What the United States of America, and the Western World, does not need is another Afghanistan. But we aren't learning any lessons; Al-Qaida and many other religious fundamentalist groups are gaining hold and already hold a considerable influence on the Syrian opposition. If Assad stops fighting, then his secular regime would fall. Al-Qaeda would now have another safe haven; to train new terrorists, to spread their ideology, and to serve as an asylum for its leaders. Is that what we want? No. We do not want another Afghanistan; Assad must prevail in this civil war in order to save the country from turning into another bother for American soldiers.

Contention Three: If Al-Assad wins, the West could pressure him to liberalize politics and introduce democracy

Very self explanatory here; if the West helps Assad, they could then pressure him with either removal or occupation if he doesn't introduces democracy, which is the preferred system of the people of Syria. After we realize that Bassad leads a secular regime, in which he doesn't rule by religion, we could use that fact to influence this fact to attempt to install a secular liberal democracy into Syria. In fact, if we reduce the support and influence of religious fundamentalist, we could create a democracy more stable than that of Egypt and Libya, as the result of instability via religious opponents. The West could ought to create a new marketplace in Syria, and possibly a new UAE-styled economy, as oil resourcese there a rich (not another Iraq though). If Al-Assad prevails in the Civil War, a blank canvas for a new stable and prosperous democracy has been created.



Debate Round No. 1
ajawed3333

Pro

ajawed3333 forfeited this round.
Kc1999

Con

Extend. Now we play the waiting game.
Debate Round No. 2
ajawed3333

Pro

ajawed3333 forfeited this round.
Kc1999

Con

Still waiting...
Debate Round No. 3
ajawed3333

Pro

ajawed3333 forfeited this round.
Kc1999

Con

Arab Youth! Rise and March to Fight Our Enemies! Raise your voices: "Long Live Baath!"

Debate Round No. 4
ajawed3333

Pro

ajawed3333 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
ajawed3333Kc1999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
ajawed3333Kc1999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by pro
Vote Placed by baus 3 years ago
baus
ajawed3333Kc1999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF without sources.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 3 years ago
Conservative101
ajawed3333Kc1999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF.