NATO is violating the UNSC resolution 1973 in Libya

Thanks baggins. I'll try to cover all the major issues in the debate, but in more of a summary format. 1) Shared Burden My opponent admonishes me that I should not have taken the debate and offers an analogy to a court room. However, what he is doing amounts to the prosecutor standing up and saying, "I don't have a case that I'm confident in, but you must prove that your client did NOT rape and murder the victim. Go! " There's a reason that demanding negative prove is considered a logical fallacy. So are appeals to authority (character witnesses), the evidence my opponent suggests that I present in my case. Conclusion: If I refute all my opponent's examples of violations, as far as this debate goes, I've upheld my burden to the show the UNSC Resolution was not violated. 2) The ‘spirit' of the resolution My opponent has the gall to suggest that I am breaking that spirit of the drunk driving law by having a single beer before driving home and that a police officer should be able to PULL ME OVER and issue me a written "warning. " This is ridiculous, considering my BAC would be .01, well within the legal limit of .08. This example just proves why "the spirit" of a law is unenforceable and trying to decide violations of the ‘spirit' of a law leads to arbitrary standards. Conclusion: look only to the letter of the law. 3) Letter of the law My opponent offers 4 reasons that the letter of the law has been violated. I'll show how I've refuted each one. 1) The mission was to protect civilians Destroying Gaddafi's air force, tanks, and rocket launchers is critical to protecting civilians since Gaddafi has shown repeatedly that he will use these pieces of machinery to murder his civilian population, if they try to protest his rule. Helping the freedom fighters, who took up arms to protect their loved ones, is critical to protecting civilians because when Gaddafi forces break through freedom fighter lines, they go on mass killing sprees, like in Misrata. No evidence has been provided that NATO has armed freedom fighters or offered them training. The "support" to them has all been limited to destroying dual use equipment, that has also been used to kill civilians (tanks, air planes). 2) Civilians can be protected under ceasefire Gaddafi does not respect international agreements. If we signed a cease fire and left, he would quickly go back to violently suppressing protesters and mass killings of civilians, knowing NATO would not have the political will to deploy a second time. Appeasement with Hitler didn't work and Gaddafi shows similar contempt for international law. 3) NATO rejected the ceasefire The freedom fighters rejected the cease fire because they don't trust Gaddafi and want him gone. If NATO forces them to take the cease fire, Gaddafi has beaten the protesters by using force, which was his original intent. If NATO took the cease fire, it would be seen in the Arab World as supporting Gaddafi. 4) Just a re-hashing of #3 Refuting the Alleged Violations 1. Unsound justification The AU rejecting the UNSC Resolution 1) doesn't prove the Resolution was violated; 2) doesn't prove the justification was unsound; 3) is pretty irrelevant when the Arab League signed on and agreed to fly air sorties with NATO . If we were asking whether someone violated federal law, saying that the law had an "unsound justification" because 20 Republicans voted against it would be a pretty bad argument. 2, 3, 4 How a Resolution passes is still irrelevant to whether it was violated. I refer you back to my House Resolution analogy. My opponent says minority opinion matters, but as far as a law being broken, we don't care why some people opposed the law. Once a majority vote for it, that law becomes law, and we look to the letter of the law to see if it was violated. Also, abstaining is most definitely not the same as voting against something. A single veto could have stopped the Resolution. 5. Support for armed rebels My opponent never proves here that we are supplying freedom fighters with weapons. In my mind, giving them body armor to protect themselves is akin to giving them sunglasses or water. No NATO country has given them weapons or training. He also never answers the most important argument, which is that I have proven that when Gaddafi's forces break through "rebel" lines, they start murdering civilians. For this reason, providing air support and body armor to the freedom fighters makes sense, since they are protecting their civilian populations from mass murder. 6. Cluster bombs New argument about the U. S and Israel, and it's irrelevant to whether it's okay for Gaddafi to cluster bomb protesters in his country. 7. Carnage by villagers My opponent concedes that NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this. 8. Collateral damage My opponent has not proven that a single person has died from collateral damage in Libya. My opponent asks about a cease fire again, but Gaddafi would not honor a cease fire and would go back to murdering civilians, AND it would be a bad move to force the Libyans to accept the terms of an oppressive dictator. Despite our best recent efforts, we would be hated in Libya for the next 200 years if we did so. 9. Drones It's been unrefuted that drones are less likely to cause collateral damage than normal air support. Also, my opponent can't prove that there has even been any collateral damage. 10. Regime change Obama asking Gaddafi to step down in a press release is not the same thing as pursuing a military goal of regime change in Libya. Obama can say whatever he wants in the press without violating the UNSC Resolution. It's silly to think that a PRESS RELEASE amounts to violating the UN Resolution. The bombing of the "palace" was one bomb dropped on an enormous compound, where Gaddafi was storing tanks and rocket launchers used to murder civilians. His palace was at the complete opposite end of the compound. If we wanted to actually kill Gaddafi, he would most definitely already be dead. Conclusions: my opponent has not proven that any of our actions in Libya have violated the UNSC Resolution. 11. Peace Refuted elsewhere AU unease Of course, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the MOST BRUTAL DICTATOR IN AFRICA, is going to condemn US action in Libya. He's afraid he's next. Conclusion: don't look to AU objections, when they are led by men like Robert Mugabe. My opponent cites Mahmoud Ahmadenijad next; he may want to use better sources in future. I have clearly refuted all of the above arguments. Conclusion: The problems in Libya started when the Arab Spring spread to Libya and started protest movements there. Gaddafi responded by dropping bombs on cities that were hotbeds for protests, like Misrata. The UN and the Arab League felt that this was a war crime (bombing civilians for protesting) and decided to step in. NATO destroyed Gaddafi's air force and continued to destroy his heavy weaponry (tanks and mobile missile launchers) to prevent them being used against civilians. NATO also offered cursory assistance to freedom fighters who were defending their homelands from Gaddafi forces; Gaddafi forces had empirically gone through towns raping and murdering civilians, even blowing up ambulances that had come to ferry away the injured and the dead. Even if Gaddafi refuses to step down, as long as he ends his military campaign against civilians and uses his military only in self-defense, NATO will leave, as per the requirement of the UN Resolution.