Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    Thank you for the debate. I enjoyed it. Also, thanks for your understanding with the last minute change in time!

    • a year ago

      I don't disagree that if something is illegal, we have the obligation to take action, but it REALLY matters what that action is, and by your own reasoning somebody will have to take action against the US, UK, and France since we were not under imminent threat and had no permission from the UN Security Council.

      Thanks for the debate btw.

      • a year ago

        between 23 and 24 minutes when I mentioned "Obama's strikes" I was talking about his proposed action. Obviously he didn't do the strikes, but I figured I'd clear that up...

        • a year ago

          @madmike let me know if you want to do this one again.

        • a year ago

          Nice debate guys. I am inclined to the pro position here. (My comments below are my own take on the issue, debate-wise, both debaters do good work making cogent arguments and rebuttals.)

          I do think the biggest problem here is that we are not really accomplishing much with these attacks,

          If the claims of Syria using chemical weapons in these instances are accurate, we have learned that these attacks are not effective in deterring them. We threatened, they used them, we attacked, they used them. So, what have we accomplished... just more death and death by our own actions to boot.

          Violence can be done to do good, but you need to know that it will be effective, otherwise its just mindless violence. Trowing a few missiles at a country that is already in war, and winning the war, means nothing to them. Only a real threat to their objective of maintaining power are any kind of real deterrent.

          If the claims are unfounded, worse wrong, then we send the signal that you can just cry wolf and have the US come kill people on your behalf, and that it doesn't matter if you do or don't use chemical weapons.

          Then you have the fact that the rebel groups in Syria have also been shown to have used chemical weapons, likely taken during combat form the Syrian stockpiles. Have we attacked the rebels? Only ISIS not the others. Some of those who we have aided have used them, did we act against them, no. Its not consistent in principle.

          On a scale of human life, these supposed chemical attacks have not made for anything like a majority of injuries and death. Frankly, a person being killed or injured isn't exactly more put out by chlorine gas than by a bullet. So we can say how we are protecting humanity etc... but really this is war, its about as inhuman as things get. People are actively trying to murder and destroy one another. Does the exact methodology matter, especially when the actual impact of it has been minimal, and when all sides in the conflict have been willing to employ said weapon?

          • a year ago

            @sigfried Great points. It is a fascinating subject, and you could have an entire debate for each facet of it. All of the following would be great, debatable motions imo...

            "The strikes were good for our general foreign policy and standing in the world" "Assad should be overthrown"
            "Assad is responsible for the Douma chemical attack" (or substitute Douma for the other two towns that were attacked)
            "We are not helping the Syrian people by intervening against Assad"
            "Obama's handling of the Chemical attacks was better than Trump's"
            "Trump's strikes were illegal"

        • a year ago

          The victors write the history and make the rules. The U.S. violates international law and the Geneva Convention every year because they can get away with it. The U.S. violated Syria's air space, killed civilians and destroyed property. Syria is a sovereign nation. Syria has a right to exist. Syria has been around for thousands of years.