Trump should not have bombed the Syrian Air Base in 2017
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
I am a Trump supporter, but dammmmmmmm was this BAD. Worst mistake he's right up there with his government shutdown that ended in a republican disaster. Anyway, dont ask for any definitions for these words. There are the definitions you just search up on Google. No forfeiting, no personal attacks and have fun. Good luck!
“Another war”. Pro outlines the negatives of intervention - terrorism and destabilization. Cons outline was thats Syria was already destabilized and served as a warning.
Pro points out that there was another chemical attack afterwards, that ISIS was falling, and so it didn’t serve as a warning, and was of limited effectiveness as Assad is being supported by Moscow.
Pro clearly outlines the harm of those killed for no apparent benefit. This point goes to pro.
Pro points out that not intervening in international affairs was a campaign promise that Trump broke. Con seems to agree. This point goes to pro, though it is not clear why breaking a promise causes inherent harm (what if he is right now but wrong before?)
3.) wrong place.
Pro claims the airbase was protecting a town from isis, indicating that the strike assisted the Jihadists. Con drops this. So this point goes to pro too.
4.) The revels made the attack - it wasn’t Syria.
There was much confusion here. Pro confuses the US backed rebels with Jihadists, and the article appears to support cons position that it was Syria.
In all, pros argument seemed too much like conspiracy and conjecture. This point goes to con. Saying this, that it was Syria that committed the bombing seems to be more in support of cons position, but given point (1) overall the benefit of bombing for the chemical attack is largely mitigated by it being ineffective.
So, the issue here is that con doesn’t give me any compelling benefit or case to support the bombing other than deterrence - which didn’t work.
Pro gives two weak harms (aiding Isis and killing civilians) of the bombing.
Given this, though pros harms are weak - they beat the lack of benefit that con shows. As a result - arguments go to pro.
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate, let's begin my analysis.
Con exhibited very poor grammar in this debate.
Some examples of his misspelling and poor wording were,
" You cant cause a war " - Should be spelled can't not cant.
" As i said i believe he was pressured to do the attack" - The I should look like this, not i.
Examples of his poor format were his/her's final round which had poor format since it was very smooshed together which made reading it clearly almost impossible.
All other points tied as I am unable to read Con's arguments amongst these conditions.