Instigator / Pro
42
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#1832

Saddam Hussein is not guilty

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
0
Better sources
12
6
Better legibility
6
4
Better conduct
6
1

After 6 votes and with 31 points ahead, the winner is...

Nevets
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1360
rating
19
debates
0.0%
won
Description

In 2003, a coalition led by the United States invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, in which U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair erroneously accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's Ba'ath party was disbanded and the country's first ever set of democratic elections were held. Following his capture on 13 December 2003, the trial of Saddam took place under the Iraqi Interim Government. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was convicted by an Iraqi court of crimes against humanity related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'a, and sentenced to death by hanging. He was executed on 30 December 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Invasion_of_Iraq_in_2003

Advisory

While my opponent has freedom to express their own free-will regards to how they conduct the debate, the debate should be conducted by someone that already has a strong belief in this subject, before taking on the debate.
It should be evident in my opponents argument that this is a subject they are knowledgeable about. And that they would have been of the opinion they are assuming during the debate, before they accepted the challenge. My opponent should already be of the pre-conceived notion regards to his argument.
Ultimately, it should be an honest debate. And the main factor on how the debate is judged should not deflect away from the title.
The debate may verge in to sub-branches, or sub-topics, but there should be no pleas for voters to assume arguments revolving around sub-issues, have became the main argument.
The main argument is "what it says in the title".
My opponent would also be expected to try and also provide some proof for his or her arguments. Even though i do not specifically set this as a rule, as i am not my brothers keeper, and i believe everyone has free-will, it would however be expected,
Also quotes with links should be clear. If my opponent is providing a limk for something, then at least one or two lines from the link should be provided as a quote, so that everyone can see what the source they are linking too says.
And if they cannot provide the quote, because the link is to a 535page book, then perhaps they should find a way of proving their source says what they say it says, by taking the time to surf the internet and find a copy they can quote from, or find another source that says this, rather than leave it to the opponent to do their research for them, and go searching for their links, and scowering the internet for their opponents claims.
It would be expected my opponent also has an argument of their own to present to the audience. And simply standing arms folded purely trying to deminish my argument, should somehow be considered a better argument, may be considered questionable. But again, this is just an advisory, and not explicitly demanded.
And of course my opponent should attempt to deminish my argument. But they should also have an argument of their own to present.
So ultimately, the voter should have at their discretion the ability to vote for an argument not being substantial enough.
By this i mean a "lazy" argument. Where-by" the Con assumes only the position of the defence, but appears to assume no need for also "proving" their side of the argument, with their entire argument revolving around purely disproving Pros claims.
This may be mistaken for a good argument.
But a voter has at their discretion the ability to decide it is not, and that Con also had the responsibility to prove their counter argument.
And this is not a wordplay debate.
There is no room in this debate for a debater that wishes to accept the challenge thinking they have spotted a loophole in the title or description that they can jump on and make this the main focus, and try to somehow persuade the voters that theirs was the better argument based upon a play on words that the instigator likely did not even mean.
Common sense must also prevail, and an argument such as this, does not even require responding too.
Failing to respond to certain types of arguments, or make any suggestion to the voters, does not equate to the opponents bad argument, or error, becoming validated.
The voter has the right to punish a debater for errors, even if the error was not highlighted by the other debater. It should be assumed that the other debater did in fact spot the logical fallacy, or the inaccuracy, or general misdemeanor, but chose not to highlight it and allow it to be self explanatory to the readers.
But ultimately, my opponent should have a good solid counter argument that can be weighed up against my own.
In the event my opponent fails to comply with any of my advisories, then the voters have at their dicretion the ability to enforce my advisories

-->
@User_2006

Speak the truth in a way that is convincing.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

"Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error."

Well, this site is for winning debates, not speaking for the truth, just saying. Hitler can win a debate against many people despite that Hitler's ideologies are simply skewed and incorrect.

-->
@Nevets

If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty,

---------------------

Sure. Set the topic, set the limit to 5k characters, 24 hour response time, 3 rounds and wikipedia cant be used as a source.

-->
@Nevets

"Was not forfeit"

Nah, he didn't make any argument to support his position. Just said a few lines about how Saddam is obviously guilty (some in all caps iirc). That's pretty much the same thing as a forfeit.

-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

Makes no sense that i forfeited. I asked my opponent to let me make my argument again, on this comment section, and he obliged within 20 minutes, and i posted my argument.. Was not forfeit.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

If you think i am debating that Saddam Hussein did not get found guilty, and i think he did not, then there is nothing i can do if this is what you think..
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty, then let me know, and i'll make a new debate on the subject...As i have no wish to debate it in the comment section

-->
@Nevets

You said about 42k words into round 2. "Saddam Hussein did indeed get found guilty, "

-->
@CaptainSceptic

Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully.

Show the direct quote where i said this...I said "accidentally".

Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error.

"I was shocked to see, after i had pressed publish, my opponent had actually replied, And had not forfeited."

Nah, they refused to argue in favor of their own side in the debate. They basically forfeited.

-->
@Nevets

That is almost a free win.

-->
@ramdatt

Welcome back.
I look forward to your next argument

Now that my opponent has had a strike through his name, can we put the thread back up for debating?

-->
@ramdatt

I did not see your reply.
I thought you had forfeited.
Any chance of just responding quickly, and advancing quickly to round 3?
Unless of course you wish to take your time.

I have to be honest. I did not even look for your reply. I automatically thought you had forfeited. As this is the first time i have ever saw you reply to a thread.
Apologies for my wrongful assumption

I made an error.
I initially did not see my opponents reply.
All i saw first time i looked was empty space.
After posting i saw his reply.
I thought he had forfeited.
As annoying as it is, i shall respond in round 3

-->
@ramdatt

Hi Ramdatt. Are you still intending to debate this subject?

Saddam Hussein is not guilty of having a brain or a heart. but he is guilty of gassing his people.

-->
@zedvictor4

hI zed. Guilty of what? Saddam Hussein was hanged in 2006 for crimes against humanity. I will be arguing that Saddam Hussein being guilty, is wrong, as the all the reasons provided by the USA to justify invading Iraq in the first instance, were "all" wrong. Everything about it was wrong. And even the things Saddam was guilty of, he could not possibly be deemed guilty of, given the crimes committed by the people that were finding him guilty. And no, i am not a Baathist. I am actually more from the debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims. I am however debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims, whilst try to highlight the "real" issues in to how and why 9/11 happened, and Saddam Hussein got caught up in all this, even though he was nothing to do with 9/11, and was actually fighting the exact same group USA were supporting on one hand. That group being, the group that flew jet liners in to the twin towers and pentagon

lol ha ha ha

-->
@Nevets

Guilty of what?.....Set by whose standards.

Is there one particular crime to focus on, one particular assertion that he was accused of being guilty of?

-->
@RationalMadman

I would not necessarily disagree with that. Though i don't want to give away what my arguments will be. However if someone is looking for psychic readings in to what facts i am likely to come up with, then they could ask the person that invited me to this site, Dr Franklin, as he has seen my argument before.

baathist

Hussein was a complete scumbag but he was taken down by a big lie.

I suggest con pick no more than three big crimes to focus on, to avoid risk of Gish Galloping.