The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Boesball2007
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

USA should KEEP troops in Syria

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Boesball2007
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 120667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Pro

I believe that USA should not pull troops from Syria. It is a region of much importance and to give up hope there for the Kurds is absurd.

Good luck to my opponent.
Boesball2007

Con

Thank you for the debate opportunity. I accept this debate. This is a very interesting topic, And I'm sure it will be a fun debate. I look forward to seeing how Pro can prove that the USA should keep troops in Syria.

In Pro's round 1, They claimed "I believe that USA should not pull troops from Syria. It is a region of much importance and to give up hope there for the Kurds is absurd. " I am making the assumption that was not Pro's opening argument, And I'm also clarifying that this is not what Con has to negate. The debate topic is "USA should KEEP troops in Syria".

My assumption is that the rules are the following:

As pro, My opponent will be trying to prove that the statement "USA should KEEP troops in Syria" is true.

As Con, I will be trying to prove that there is not enough evidence to claim that the statement "USA should KEEP troops in Syria" is true.

It is Pro's job to start the debate as the affirmative, So I will be letting Pro give their opening argument in round 2. Because of this, Round 1 will merely be me accepting the debate, And I will not be giving my first argument until round 2. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

Thank you for being very nice.

1) ISIS is not dead. UN Secretary General Ant"nio Guterres told the Security Council at the start of February 2018 that ISIS was reported to still control between 14, 000 and 18, 000 militants in Iraq and Syria, Including up to 3, 000 foreigners. This organization is not dead.

2) History repeats itself. Go back to 2011 and Obama pulls troops out of Iraq. Iraq does not have time to develop their army
and ISIS makes sweeping gains and were back their again. Take a look at Syria. There are four factions-. Rebels, Government, Kurds, And ISIS. We currently support the kurds who cleared out key ISIS strongholds like Raqqa. If we pull out troops ISIS can come back, The Government who is backed by Russia can make sweeping gains and Russia will gain a key stronghold. Something we can't give up. Radical terrorist and rebels who are backed by Turkey have ALSO made big gains on the kurds. We ant let them go down to ISIS, Turkey and rebels and Russia and the government.
Boesball2007

Con

Boesball2007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Boesball2007

Con

Con once again had two main arguments in their round 3. I will respond to them first.

1) The US needs to keep troops in Syria because we need to destroy terrorism.

First off, I would like to clarify a factual inaccuracy in one of the points Pro made. Pro said "Trump pulled out troops because he THOUGHT that ISIS was dead". Trump has made it publicly clear that he is not pulling troops out of Syria completely after all (1). This is an untrue and un-sourced statement right in the middle of your argument.

Second off, Regardless of how much death and destruction ISIS has caused, Pro has failed to provide proof that it is enough to warrant intervention. On top of this, The United States has openly seemed very confused towards what side of the conflict they are on. For example, Early 2018, The United States was aggressively launching air strikes against the Syrian government itself (2). ISIS is fighting against the Syrian government in Syria. This means that the US has launched air strikes against the Syrian government at the same time the US have ground troops fighting ISIS and other terrorist groups that are also fighting the Syrian government. If that is true, Then the US is effectively fighting both sides of a civil war. If there is reason for the US to believe that both sides of the war are at fault, That seems like a perfect justification to not get involved militarily at all. Like I said earlier, My argument is against troops in Syria, And I have no problem sending humanitarian aid like food and other life-saving items.

2) Even if Turkey does not take out the Kurds, There is still the Russians and Syrians.

The Russians have no reason to want to oppress the Kurds. As for the Syrians, The United States could make an agreement to stop air-striking the Syrian government in exchange for the Assad regime to provide protection for the Kurds. As I mentioned earlier, The United States is effectively on two sides of a civil war here. The Syrian government probably does not want the United States air-striking their country, And the United States has immense leverage over them as well. If the United States really wanted the Kurds protected without using military force, That could be accomplished.

Everything I needed to say regarding this is in my responses to the points Pro made. Thank you for the debate opportunity!

Sources:
(1) https://www. Nbcnews. Com/news/us-news/trump-says-he-agrees-100-percent-keeping-u-s-troops-n979466
(2) https://www. Theatlantic. Com/international/archive/2018/04/syria-is-not-a-humanitarian-war/557897/
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
It says I need to post my argument. This debate should be in voting
Posted by Boesball2007 3 years ago
Boesball2007
Can an administrator please analyze why the debate deleted my round 2 argument? Also why did the debate go back from voting?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
This argument was posted before I had knowledge of trump keeping troops. That is my fault.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 3 years ago
Jzyehoshua
AnonymousBoesball2007Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the debate worth reading by pointing out that the U.S. has been attacking both the Syrian government and the rebels; making it tough to tell which side it's on. Better reasoning and more carefully-constructed arguments by Con.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.