Foreign Powers Should Not Intervene in Syria's Civil War

I will respond to YYW's rebuttals this round, then in my next and final round I will try to both give a conclusion and respond to his points.1. National SovereigntyI take issue with my opponent's refutation to national sovereignty. First of all, the violation of human rights in no way disqualifies one from the right to sovereignty. This is the case for two reasons: 1) who has the right to violate sovereignty and 2) who decides when a certain human right is grave enough to forfeit sovereignty? Should we intervene in France to make sure people are allowed to express their religious views in public schools? Do we bomb Saudi Arabia to allow Christians more freedom? How about in Laos, Cuba and North Korea, should we intervene there? Did the US sacrifice its sovereignty in the days of slavery and the civil rights movement? Did we get that sovereignty back? Says who?As you see, the fact that someone throws around the term "human rights violation" arbitrarily does not give an outside power any right to breach one's sovereignty. If the government has lost legitimacy with the people, the people will remove it which they are trying to do. Human rights are being violated by both sides which I pointed out in my previous round. By supporting the rebels now you are supporting their own violation of human rights, so you can't use that as the focus of intervention. A point you failed to negate. The time to intervene is long past. You could have argued in favor of human rights three years ago when people were being gunned down in the streets. Now that this movement is tainted with terrorists, Christian haters and chemical weapons you cannot in good faith claim to support them over Assad in an issue of "human rights".2. Human Rights and Picking Sides My opponent parrots almost the same argument he put forth in the first section of this round. Again, I affirm that both sides have committed human rights violations. You cannot in good faith choose one over the other at this time. You want to intervene on behalf of those whose rights are being violated, but again I said the people now whose rights are being violated are those caught in the middle of the war so intervening on behalf of them means putting an end to the conflict which means you have to pick a side which, on the grounds of human rights, you cannot do because both sides are nearly equally as bad at this point. Everyone likes to say that "rights are being violated", but what rights? The right to life? The right not to be in a civil war? The violation of rights by the Assad regime was years ago, now this is merely a civil war. 3. Stability, Freedom and Unpredictability I want to point out that my major point about the unpredictability of conflict and intervention and how it applies to the future was left completely untouched. The fact that we cannot predict what will happen and that intervening on behalf of freedom or stability is not guaranteed and therefore cannot be done in good faith because of national sovereignty was dropped and therefore affirmed.My opponent;s big claim here is that we have a "moral responsibility" to prevent atrocities. I say that we don't and I can give a half a dozen moral arguments why that is not the case but I don't want this to be bogged down by a distracting moral debate. Who has the responsibility? The State? Individuals? I want to say that we have a political responsibility to respect national sovereignty at all costs. Again, I want to point out to my opponent that this is no longer a one sided conflict where the government is violating rights and committing atrocities, this has evolved into a civil war which is something much different. Now it's a pretty even fight, as we can tell by the stalemate. Both sides are violating rights and committing atrocities. They need to solve it from themselves. If you want to help these people who are the subject of "rights violations" and "atrocities" you can aid the refugees in neighboring countries, that does not intervene in the conflict and would be perfectly legitimate, but leave the conflict alone. 4. Intervention and War All of those things you described would prolong a conflict. Say a Syrian rebel convoy packed with crucial supplies to support a local front was about to run through an ambush but intervention has given this convoy intelligence to avoid this trap, you've just prolonged the conflict. Hungry soldiers that would throw down their arms and go home because they're tired of starving now have food to keep fighting. All of this "non-military" aid will prolong the bloodshed, the death, the potential for further atrocities and human rights violations to occur. It is much better to let the conflict play out on its own.A good example of this is how the rebels were making key gains and some were even talking about an end to the war when Hezbollah decided to aid the Assad regime giving him key personnel and weapons to push the rebels back making it once more a stalemate and prolonging the destruction. The rebels could have won legitimately until a foreign group intervened and mucked up the conflict. [1]In conclusion... My opponent dropped a lot of my strong points and recycled the same trite points over and over this round. I won't make a list of the points dropped because I believe in the intelligence of the voters. There should be no intervention because the time for intervention is long past, this is no longer a one sided human rights violation but a sovereign civil war that no one has a right to intervene in.Thank you.[1] http://www.jewishpress.com...