Intervening to create democracy in third-world countries is the obligation of capable societies

Response to comments:C1: Use whatever you like, as long as I understand it and it's structured properly I don't mind. C2: Just a subpoint.C3: I'll address this throughout the argument in my responses.Con CaseC1: "The means to intervene" is a little relative and ambiguous. I think my point still stands here because the US does have enormous military spending relative to the rest of the world and holds one of the strongest militaries in the modern era. Pro's contention implies the initiation of many conflicts in the third world given our capacities. Pro returns to "can implies ought" which, I have mentioned, is contingent on whether we accept the principle at hand. Perhaps if Pro proved the principle this point could accepted. If consequences are viewed as morally relevant - an issue that hasn't been explicitly addressed, but I believe so - then Pro's argument implies interventions across numerous African states. Such an intervention would undoubtedly carry an enormous cost financially and in terms of lives.It's a little peculiar to see Pro so adamently against toppling Saddam Hussein, an obvious dictator, when he is arguing that intervention against dictators to create democracies is correct. This at first glance appears to be a backpedal from Pro as democracy-building was exactly what occured in Iraq. C2: Fair enough, when I refer to "gay rights" or "women's rights" I am referring to equal treatment. Unfortunately, Pro refuses to reference case studies here and build a case for democracy which leaves his responses at mere assertions. I have argued that there are structural caveats in the democratic system and that the system is not intrinsically superior to a dictatorship, but Pro refuses to cite case studies because, as noted in comment 3, he believes they are unreliable. Pro has made no serious objection here as my original argument was that there is nothing intrinsically superior - or that a dictatorship could theoretically be superior in terms of the welfare of the people - than a democratic alternative. If Pro is going to make his case that we must systematically intervene in third world nations governed by a dictatorship he must account for these cases.Pro Case C1: Yes, as mentioned earlier the acceptance of "can implies ought" is the ethical principle to which the statement is concerned. Pro must make his case before we can accept this.C2: I've mentioned structural caveats in democracy, Pro concedes this and responds that in general democracy has a better track record in terms of human rights than dictatorships. However, Pro must account for cases where this is not the case as up to now he has not seriously questioned the notion that there may be dictatorships that are more favorable than a democratic option. Also, an enormous caveat here that has not been given due time is the instability if not outright violence in the wake in the collapse of dictatorships. Pro absolutely must address this despite his disdain of case studies, and the French Revolution is a prime example of this. Any quick transition of power is likely to bring instability, as was the case in post-Saddam Iraq.C3: Again, mere assertion. C4: Accepted - this isn't really a point of argument but a point of clarification for Pro.C5: Like C4, this is just a point of clarification that doesn't really add to Pro's argument. In reality there is no way the UN would be supportive of a wide scale intervention in third world dictatorships. Many of these third world countries have seats on the UN and such a measure would be very radical.C6: Pro runs out of space here so I have nothing to respond to. The debate may take place on a later date. ConclusionI'll reiterate my statement made in R2: Pro's case must be two pronged that a) Democracy is inherently superior in terms of upholding human rights than a dictatorship and b) We have a moral obligation to intervene across the third world to accomplish this goal. Pro refuses to engage case studies unfortunately which seriously limits the scope of his case. Nor does b follow from a. The case for "a" must address both case studies and responses to the caveats proposed earlier. Pro also does not respond to the ambiguity in deciding which countries ought to be intervened in terms of whether we're limiting ourselves to pure dictatorships or whether hybrid or corrupt democracies are worth intervention. Pro thusfar has made no serious counter-point to my claim regarding the staggering costs in terms of human lives and financial resources this policy would entail. Furthermore, he merely posits that democracy is on balance superior to dictatorships in terms of human rights. This statement does not account for cases where that proposition is untrue or where establishing a democracy has led to unintended consequences in the form of guerilla warfare (Iraq, Afghanistan), political turmoil culimationing in terror and executions (French Revolution), or geopolitical instability. Many of Pro's points (P1, P3, P4, P5) are not directly relevant to the moral proposition at stake. Whether the UN intervenes, diplomacy fails, the citizens are unable to overthrow the dictator, or "can implies ought" are arguments that are essentially putting the cart before the horse. Before we can accept these points as meaningful is contrived from accepting the basic moral principle stated in the resolution. P2 and P6 do take up the issue of consequences, but P6 is not argued due to lack of space and P2 I question in the form of caveats in the democratic system and benevolent dictatorships. The issue of the morality of intervening as opposed to simply acknowledging one system as superior in the domain of human rights is one area of the argument that Pro has neglected. Are we to essentially declare war on every nation which fails to live up to the standards of American democracy? Back to you, Pro.