So, hello. Welcome to the first ever Nerdfighters formal debate.
The uprising in Syria is part of the wider Arab Spring. Protesters are calling for the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, who rules unopposed and is responsible for a number or human rights abuses. Similar to Libya, the situation in Syria has become violent, and many nations and international groups have condemned the use of force against the protesters. The motion that will be contested in this debate is whether the U.S. should use military intervention, as it did in Libya.
Eystein will argue in favour of the motion, and Chen will argue against.
Each debater will get an opening statement to outline their main arguments, during this round of opening statements, I think it would be preferred if the participants stuck to explaining their own arguments, and not speaking against their opponent's points.
After the opening statements, there will be three alternating rounds of back and forth discussion, in which the participants can poke holes in each other's arguments, and expand further on their own points.
Eystein will go first, and responses will alternate thereafter (who goes first was determined randomly)
So to summarise:
Eystein - Opening Statement
Chen - Opening Statement
Eystein - Response 1
Chen - Response 1
Eystein - Response 2
Chen - Response 2
Eystein - Response 3
Chen - Response 3
On the off chance that anyone is observing this debate, can you please only post your own thoughts in the other thread found here: http://nerdfighters.ning.com/group/debate-group/forum/topics/should... and only one the debate is over, so as to prevent unfairness.
Please only reply to this original post when debating, not to each other, the way the ning's reply structure works means that this will be the least cluttered format.
I'm sorry, reading up on the case I somehow managed to change my mind and I'm now indifferent about it. Both sides is more despicable than the other, so removing Assad will only serve to end up with a revenge-driven tyranny instead, most likely.
The killings should stop however, but it seems unlikely that they'll manage to do that all by themselves. For that too much blood has been shed, and in that respect I believe some outside force should be applied. But it seems to me that whatever western support the opposition may have now, will soon enough recede once they are in power, and then what is the point? What is the point if they'll turn against Shiites the moment the tides have turned? And as the majority, how will they consider Christians, Kurds and other minorities? If the opposition forces weren't so Sunni biased, but had a more clearly defined and credible vision for a more just and free Syria for everyone, then I would be all for a NATO military intervention for their cause, possibly led by Turkey. For now however I think an unpartial intervention lead by the UN would be best.
As I said in the other thread, I don't have time to come here every day....
Anyways, I've read Eystein's comment and I agree. I would also like to add that as a practical matter, I don't think it wise to intervene, at least not without forethought. Whatever you may think of the protesters and of Assad, an intervention will only cause instability and will hardly solve anything. I sympathies with the protesters but I think that to my own interests (morals aside) a stable and predictable enemy as Assad who has mostly kept his borders peaceful, is better than a Syria ruled by chaos and extremists.
I think this debate is in a pickle since both sides agree....
Can I suggest the one of you plays devil's advocate? I sometimes actually prefer arguing against something I believe in, makes it interesting..
I'd say Eystein since he was going to argue against anyway.
I would like to be against the house, Eynstein first said he was for it.
My mistake. OK, then, I guess Eystein will still be playing devil's advocate then.