The Social Lounge Debates - First Rounds: Young_Chitlin vs. RodrigueZz *Young_Chitlin Wins*

SionSion Posts: 18,751
edited January 2013 in The Social Lounge
Welcome to The Social Lounge Debates. In these debates you will judged based on 3 criteria - Content, Delivery and Fact. There is a word limit of 500 words per round, going over that will result in points being deducted. Additional rules are as follows: You have 3 rounds per debate and a time limit of 24 hours per round to respond. Each debate should take no longer than 3-5 days. If you are to vote please wait until the END of the debate to cast your vote. For spectators, please do not attempt to derail or throw the debaters off topic. Doing so will result in your vote not counting and you may be jailed/banned until the entire tournament is finished.

Should the United States have a vested interest in Syria ? Young_Chitlin - Yes , RodrigueZz - No

The Social Lounge Debates - First Rounds: Young_Chitlin vs. RodrigueZz

Sign in to vote!
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.


  • SionSion Posts: 18,751
    edited November 2012

    Alright this is the new thread.

    Young_Chitlin aye fam if you want you can reuse/copy&paste your first post from the last thread or use a new one. It's up to you.

    & RodrigueZz best of luck fam. You've seen his last post so you know what to expect/counter with so this should be good....
  • Young_Chitlin
    Thank you the Social Lounge for being host of these debates. I’m honored to take part in such spirited discussion.

    Should the United States have a vested interested in Syria? Without question yes, they should have a vested interest. America needs to intervene in Syria as the slaughter of the Syrian people has become too much. We need to focus on a country who has IRAN as an ally. We should pay attention to a country that has Al Qaeda and Hezbollah running rampant. Syria’s leader, Bashar Assad, is ruling with the proverbial iron fist. His loyal followers are killing scores of innocent people on the daily. Weapons are being given to the rebels whose arsenal includes tanks.

    The fact that President Obama has failed to do anything significant in regards to Syria is appalling. Syria is essentially carrying out genocide while the leader of arguably the most powerful country in the world does nothing about it.

    Contrary to former Secretary of State James Baker’s infamous words, we DO have a dog in this fight! The Syrian people need American assistance as the situation over there worsens with each passing day. The solution is to support the Syrian National Council. Supply them with arms and any other resources necessary to end Assad’s regime.
  • TrashboatTrashboat Posts: 14,340
    Shit I forgot about this. I need to do a bit more research into it and then i'll post
  • TrashboatTrashboat Posts: 14,340
    Why the hell didn't anyone remind me about this?

    It is with great honor and privilege that I present to the audience and honorable judges of the Social Lounge debates my articulated introductory speech stating why America should not have a vested interest in Syria.

    I will open by discussing the elephant in the room: cost. No matter how noble my opponent may attempt to make intervention in Syria seem, without discussing the enormous associated cost of any sort of action in Syria we are neglecting the most important factor of this issue.

    America is still experiencing a time of economic difficulty in many parts of the country. Obamacare has led to increased unemployment and part time employment rates due to employer greed, and intervention in Syria will not be cheap. Calculations based on limited government releases and various media leaks show the estimated cost of intervention in Libya was $60,000,000 - 80,000,000 per week. At a time when social programs are of great interest to the American people, and the American standard of living is in jeopardy, throwing money at a war in another foreign country is not an appealing option for the working class American. Coincidentally, the overwhelming majority of America consists of working class people. Going against the interests of the American people is un-American; it is undemocratic and the forefathers that built this beautiful country would turn in their graves if they knew that the government has consistently managed to throw the general public under the train in order to fund unnecessary war efforts overseas.

    Moving away from cost and the implications intervention in Syria has for American values, I would like to bring your attention to the concept of merit. My opponent has discussed Bashar Assad’s unfit ruling and poor treatment of the Syrian people, and is attempting to use it as a justification for Syrian intervention. Well I would just like to know what makes Syria so damn special that their needs take priority over the needs of countries experiencing worse. Why is it that America needs to go running to help Syria when there is a plethora of other countries around the world that could use America’s help even more? The money that would go into helping the Syrian people would be better spent helping a country that is more deserving of help based on their levels of poverty and violence. Compared to other dictators, such as Kim Jong-Il, Isaias Afewerki, Omar al-Bashir, and Islam Karimov, Bashar al-Assad is considered mild. Why does Syria have more merit than Uzbekistan, Sudan and Eritrea when they need assistance far more than Syria?

    In closing: the financial implications of Syrian intervention outweigh the nobility of the idea and if humanitarianism is the goal then there are needier countries that America can help. Syrian intervention is clearly based on private interest and does not represent the interests of the American people. It is unwise and un-American for America to intervene.

    Thank you.

  • Young_Chitlin
    A most interesting first argument @RodrigueZz; however, there are two points which I want to say something about first.

    Cost: When it comes to intervention, no cost is too great if it affects the United States. Was the cost too much when Pearl Harbor happened? When the Vietnamese messed with our naval base in the Gulf of Tomkin, was the cost too great then to go to war? Cost is not a primary issue when it comes to intervention.

    Economic difficulty: Let’s see here… the passages of the Stimulus Package, Obamacare as well as the bailouts of BOTH the Automobile and Bank industries were agreed upon by the people of Congress that we elected but instead acted on their own interests. I have not even begun to mention the $16 TRILLION dollar+ debt we have. With that said, I’m steering this debate back to Syria.

    IT HAS GOTTEN TO THE POINT where the United States has to intervene. Why would Bashar Assad be seeking asylum in other countries? The answer is because he is planning to unleash something very bad to his own people. Now what might that be?

    Mixing sarin gas to unleash on the Syrian people

    Sarin gas is a nerve agent. It attacks the central nervous system and slowly shuts down bodily function. It is absorbed through inhalation and skin. One drop is enough to kill you. If you were caught in a affected area but still only encountered minimal exposure somehow, you would still suffer life long mental disability from gas exposure. Just think of how many Syrian lives will be lost if sarin gas is unleashed on a grand scale... several hundred thousand will perish. A leader that seeks to rid those that disagree by sarin gas exposure and then fleeing the scene of the crime? That’s absolutely reprehensible and cowardly.

    Syrian intervention is needed for our national security and that of our allies. Diplomacy and/or any other lesser means simply will not work on Bashar Assad. We need to shut him down, permanently.

    Thank you.

  • TrashboatTrashboat Posts: 14,340

    Your response was produced very timely. However, there are some weaknesses in your reply that stand out.

    Comparing a controversial preemptive strike in Syria to Pearl Harbor, in which America responded to attacks on American citizens and property is not a good comparison. In one instance America is reacting to offensive measures taken against America, and in the other America is spending money it does not have to fight a war because something "might" happen that could possibly pose a threat to Americans in the future. Until Syria attacks or makes blatant threats and the risk is clear as day that comparison does not quite fit.

    Also if saving lives really was the priority then the idea of merit must once again be looked at. While lives could be saved if America intervened in Syria even more could be saved if they intervened in other countries suffering at the hands of wicked dictators, such as Eritrea. What makes white Syrian lives more valuable than Black Eritrean ones? Why should saving Syrian lives merit more support than those of others? If the goal is to save lives then more could be saved intervening in other countries. Seeing as American leaders have expressed no desire to intervene in other countries it is apparent that their aim is not to save lives. Thus the saving of innocent lives defense is nonsense.

    In terms of financial implications everything you said seemed to support my idea of war being an unnecessary expense at this point in time.

    To add on to the list of reasons why America should not intervene: Obama made many campaign promises to bring troops home. Sending Americans to go fight in Syria is completely contrary to this. It is most advisable that Syrian intervention be avoided unless necessary - which at this point in time it is not.

  • Young_ChitlinYoung_Chitlin Posts: 11,024
    Does not have to fight a war because something “might” happen…

    Why would we wait until Syria makes a blatant threat? Did Britain stand idle as Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands 30 years ago? Despite repeated warnings, Argentina did not budge and so Britain had to slaughter the Argentine soldiers to take back what is “theirs.”

    For savage tyrants such as Bashar Al-Asad, what is not to say their possible blatant threat is in the form of a strike to either us or one of our allies (i.e. Israel)? What makes saving Syrian lives important is not Syria and the al-Asad loyalists, but whom is supporting his government and the threat said allies hold. As I mentioned in one of my earlier arguments, Syria has Iran as an ally. With the potentiality of sarin gas and Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the United States can no longer remain idle. 60,000 have died thus far, how many more must perish before President Obama does something? Nothing is “peaceful” about Iran’s nuclear program. They want to build it up to the point that they can obliterate Israel, which is the ultimate goal for said program. Israel’s pre-emptive strikes should serve as a warning that they are not to be messed with. What will be the position of the United States once Israel is hit with a nuclear bomb?? Syria and EVERY other Arab country detests Israel and will love nothing more than to see it gone, Palestine especially so they can fully claim the Gaza Strip. Until it is necessary? Please...

    To conclude… the United States SHOULD have a vested interest in Syria, and thus must put an end to Bashar al-Asad’s tyranny once and for all. With the United States being arguably THE military giant of the world, it is our moral duty to protect our allies and end the Syrian bloodshed because otherwise, catastrophe on a grand scale could happen.

    Thank you.
  • TrashboatTrashboat Posts: 14,340
    Thank you for another quick response. I must remark though, it seems that haste has weakened the overall strength of your argument.

    Comparing Britain's taking action in response to Argentinian invasion and America getting involved in an internal conflict of a country is very apples and oranges. Moreover, to say that America should intervene in Syria because Syrians might be gassed to death is not the same as Britain seeing an invasion actually taking place and then responding to it. In one instance there is an actual threat and in another there is just a chance for there to be a threat. Implying a preemptive strike is necessary to save lives is overly presumptuous and may not be needed. While Libyan soldiers were going to slaughter protesters and intervention was absolutely necessary, in Egypt there was no need to get involved as the army remained neutral. At this point in time Syria appears to be more like Egypt than Libya.

    It is my understanding that Syria is Russia's closest middle eastern ally. If they were to take the same approach as America in dealing with Syria, then we would intervene to defend Israel and Russia would intervene to defend Syria. We might be looking at Vietnam all over again. Nobody wants to see that again. It remains an enormous blemish on America's record.

    President Barack Obama has made many promises to start bringing American troops home so they can see their families. So that fathers may be with their wives and watch their children grow up. Getting involved in more conflicts overseas is completely contrary to this goal and just puts more good American men in the line of fire away from the ones they love. It is not America's job to police the globe.

    In closing, the situation in Syria has not yet become volatile enough to warrant a full on intervention from America. The problem is not yet out of control and getting too involved in the conflict may bring rise to undersirable conflicts with Syria's allies, such as Russia.
  • TrashboatTrashboat Posts: 14,340
    edited January 2013
    glad that shit is finally over
    i had to restart numerous times cause the draft didnt get saved

    I was getting tired of writin the same shit over and over
  • Young_ChitlinYoung_Chitlin Posts: 11,024
    At least you didn't wait a month to reply lmao
  • Young_ChitlinYoung_Chitlin Posts: 11,024
    RodrigueZz wrote: »
    Sudden Death Round?

    I'll agree to that if we end up in a tie
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639
    LOL @ the thank you's in the beginning of the debates.

Sign In or Register to comment.