Instigator / Pro
Points: 14

Trump should not have bombed the Syrian Air Base in 2017


The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 10
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!
Round 1
{--ANOTHER FU***** WAR--}
The only thing this created was the same affect the Iraq war created. More terrorism and destabilization. This lead to massive tensions, helping ISIS, and destabilizing the region. Libya,Iraq, and then Syria. Intervention does not help. Name one positive thing to come out this.

Trump said in a 2013 tweet after the chemical attack “Don't Attack Syria-an attack will only bring trouble to the U.S. focus on making America strong and great again.” This is what Trump campaigned against.{1}

The very air base that Trump bombed was protecting a Christian town that was under attack by ISIS almost every day and destroyed churches. By doing that, Trump is helping ISIS who came out and said that the bombing of the air base was GOOD. As well as al-qaeda. Trump helped jihadists. The first airstrike Trump did in Syria killed 30 civilians.{2}{3}

First of all in the 2013 attack, Syrian rebels in the Darra district admitted to committing the atrocity. So we know that they have chemical weapons as well as why should Assad commit this atrocity? He is winning the war and is in a perfect position. It makes no sense to kill civilians. At this point he took Aleppo. The area where the chemical weapon attack took place, the rebels took defeat and agreed to leave out of the are in 2 weeks.The stage is set and in favor for the rebels for committing this.

A rebel chemical factory was discovered in the same region where the attack happened and found the very same chemical weapon materials used in the attack. The military of Syria warned civilians of a chemical attack from the rebels. James Mattis, Secretary of Defense admitted that there was no evidence Assad did the attack.{4}


{--ANOTHER FU***** WAR--}
No, this is absolutely false. Syria was already a complete cluster of hell and war riddled. You cant cause a war when there is already one going on. Positive things that may occur are that the missiles were a warning strike to keep Assad from getting more creative with how he kills.

This is not being a hypocrite. You are able to evolve your thoughts over time, although i sincerely believe trump only bombed Syria because of pressure from human rights organizations.

The link you gave was with relation to the Yemen war, which is not relevant in this topic. You have yet to provide any evidence of the city being majority christian and “under protection” and 0 evidence supporting that ISIS said it was “good”.

The final link you provided LITERALLY SAYS that in one of the attacks a SYRIAN ARMY COPTER is the only thing responsible for launching the attack. There is 0 solid evidence that the rebels did this.

Round 2
I apologize for not proceeding the right links. I had this debate in another website, so I apologize

point 1. Syria was winding down as a war. Aleppo was liberated and ISIS was starting to collapse. This made things WORSE. A "warning strike" means nothing when Russia is backing you up.

point 2. No. This was a CAMPAIGN promise. He PROMISED he would stop intervention in foreign countries,but he didn't. He didn't simply just evolved. 

MSNBC interview 2016 Reporter asks Trump-"Should the US continue intervention in Syria?." Trump replies-"What, are we gonna start WW3 over Syria. NO"

point 3. It was the Christian city of Mhradeh. A church was bombed.{1}

point 4. Ok you tell me this. The Rebels were LOSING. They admitted they were behind the 2013 attack.{2}. And ASSAD was winning, and was on offense. WHY would ASSAD ever think for a trillionth of a second to poison their OWN people. Another attack was founded in 2018 which there was undeniable evidence the Rebels did it. Whats the evidence ASSAD did it huh tell me. You didn't respond to MY evidence the rebels did it.

point 1. It does mean something. Although Russia is backing Assad im pretty sure they dont go around bombing civilians with gas.

point 2: Well then its a promise he clearly failed to do as we are helping Saudi Arabia do thier stuff and now  trying to intervene in Venezuela, which leads me to think that hes being pressured by his advisors.

point 4.Your conveniently confusing rebel with ISIS. There are just some Syrians who wish to overthrow Assad and are therefore fighting against his army. ISIS is a terrorist group.It literally says IN THE ARTICLE “ the jihadist rebels issued a statement telling the civilians of Mhardeh to not fear them because they only intend to fight the government”.

“And ASSAD was winning, and was on offense. WHY would ASSAD ever think for a trillionth of a second to poison their OWN people”. WHAT! YES! He does it EVERYDAY. He not only kills terrorists but CLEARLY bombs civilians with ABSOLUTELY NO lashback.

Round 3
point 1. It doesn't mean anything and it hasn't. What changed in that attack. NOTHING. There was another round of chemical attacks the very next year. 

point 2.It doesn't matter if pressured by advisors or not. He promised he would rain the swamp which he din't int that area. It was a PROMISE. he was hypocritical, no denying that. 

point 4. It don't matter, they were jihadists. Rebels were jihadists. Jabhat Nusra, Syria’s homegrown Salafi-jihadist group, has important links to al-Qaeda affiliates and demonstrates a higher level of effectiveness than many other rebel groups.  Jabhat Nusra has demonstrated sensitivity to popular perception and they are gaining support within Syria. The emergence of indigenous Salafi-jihadist groups such as Jabhat Nusra is far more dangerous to the long-term stability of the Syrian state than foreign jihadist groups because it represents a metamorphosis of a Salafi-jihadist ideology into a domestic platform that is able to achieve popular resonance.

No evidence for ASSAD doing war crimes nor responsibility for chemical weapons attack. The media literarily used a little boy as a war crime for ASSAD when his own father supported ASSAD. The media said that a little girl was running away from ASSAD bombs but it was a music video cover. 
point 1: Even if what you are saying is true (same attack next year) there was 0 harm to come from it. There was no harm in trying.

point 2: As i said, in his campaign promise he mightve been thinking differently. Im not saying its okay to break a promise just that his thoughts about the subject may have changed.

point 4: It does matter. They are not fighting in the name of Allah like ISIS. There goal is to overthrow there failed leader Assad. There is no “threat to long term stability” as Syria is already FAR from being even close to stable and it is in ruins. These rebels are not perfect however.

“No evidence”. There is PLENTY! Human rights violations from the opposition and Assads army. Here is an entire article on it.

Round 4
point 1. THERE WAS HARM. How do you tell the families of the seven dead syrian soldiers that they died over a MYTH.

point 2.We voted for it,and we didn't get it. It's ok to change though but not a MAJOR campaign promise. 

point 4. THEY ARE JIHADISTS. Watch any documentary and they are screaming allem snackbar. >>

Un Secretary called Idlib province the biggest hot bed for terrorists since North Pakistan in the 90's. 

I said no evidence for the chemical attack

AHH YES, good one. The government committed crimes ok. But so did the rebels. ITS right there in your source and its a lot more than ASSAD. 

"On 20 March 2012, Human Rights Watch issued an open letter to the opposition (including the FSA), accusing them of carrying out kidnappings, torture and executions, and calling on them to halt these unlawful practices. In July 2012, the Daoud Battalion, operating in the Jabal-al-Zawiya area, reportedly used captured soldiers in proxy bombings. This involved tying the captured soldier into a car loaded with explosives and forcing him to drive to an Army checkpoint, where the explosives would be remotely detonated."

AND SO SO MUCH MORE. See the beach part. Woman can NOT do anything like that under Sharia Law. Syria looks peacful and you look at Idlib and its a disaster.

They did not die over a myth. At least one helicopter did launch chemical attacks on CIVILIANS. Not JIHADISTS. People in buildings eating breakfeast. As i said i believe he was pressured to do the attack, i get it was a promise. Not all are Jihadists, if you think otherwise please give me a statistic on how many (non ISIS) Jihadist rebels there are, specifically with the intent of “killing infidels” because the ones im speaking about literally said they dont wish to hurt the christian people in the city, only to overthrow Assad. I never said rebels didnt also commit warcrimes. Its still a fact that Assad did and my main point is that our attack against him was to keep him from steppiing out of line again.

--> @Pinkfreud08
Yes and I agree. I would rather lose than tie because I know what I can improve on. Like my Go voter suppression debate, I am debating Virtuoso, a very skilled debater, I probably will lose, But I will learn a lot more about debating and improve
--> @Dr.Franklin
I try to make sure every single debate has at least one vote and every single debate doesn't have an unjust vote thanks.
--> @Pinkfreud08
I would like to thank Pinkfreud08 for the vote and encourage others to vote aswell.
He shouldn't have been president in the fucking first place.
--> @Alec
ok I accepted
--> @Dr.Franklin
I sent you a friend request. We're both right of center.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
“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.
2.) hypocrisy.
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.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.