Mummar Gaddafhi's Leadership Was A Net Gain For Libya And The World.

I will rebut Pro's points and describe how the harms of Gaddafi's leadership has caused Libya and the world outweigh the possible improvements.Effects on Libyan people:It seems as if my opponent has simply made a list of some changes to Libya under Gaddafi but has not explained them. I will explain why these points are not as good as Pro makes them seem.Most of these apparent "benefits" Pro lists have to do with Libya's advancement. Pro hasn't really explained anything, but I believe the idea he is trying to make here is that "under Gaddafi's leadership, Libya improved in many ways". Although some things in Libya have become better since pre-1969, we have to put these things into perspective.Human rights & HealthPro states that Gaddafi has caused the "Improved Welfare Of The Libyan People". Sorry, but using this as an example to prove Muammar Gaddafi's leadership was a net gain is wrong. It's true that Libya's HDI has gone up over the long term (currently ranking at a "very good" 64th[1], not even the best in Africa), but Libya's situation with human rights and development is nowhere near as good as Pro makes it seem, and when the revolutionary civil war began, under Gaddafi's leadership, human rights completely failed. My opponent says that Gaddafi's leadership was good because he provided "Free health care for all citizens". I would like to think that any good leader who could afford it would definitely do the same, but what matters is that he did it, right? Well, actually, Libya's health care system, under Gaddafi's leadership, is nowhere near as good as Pro claims it is. Before the revolution, even though Libya did have healthcare improvement, it also had many huge problems. One of Libya's most significant health issues was road traffic accidents. Mortality figures have doubled in the last 15 years and many people are left with permanent disability[2]. A good leader would deal with the problem at its roots, and work on prevention more than on cure. But Gaddafi's constant neglect of one of the main problems (e.g. Better road laws, better roads etc.) is reason enough to say that through his neglect, he has caused many unnecessary problems for Libya.Another major problem under Gaddafi's leadership is that a very large number of hospitals have had long periods of construction/renovation, some going on for as long as 8 or 9 years, while others just remain unfinished (e.g. Misrata and Sebha)[2]. This shows even further neglect, as a good leader would have dealt with the problem of lack of hospitals. This not only shows how Gaddafi further neglects Libya, but the fact that these unusable hospitals are still counted when determining HDI shows that the current figure is false and the real figure is much less.That was pre-revolution. During the revolution, healthcare completely failed. The death toll for the war is up to 25,000[3]. Hundreds of thousands of civilians became homeless and many died of illnesses in their poor conditions. Gaddafi was fighting the revolutionary army, but he has no excuse for neglecting these innocent civilians when they needed help to live. Furthermore, he committed human rights abuses to both soldiers and civilians. You cannot possibly say Libya has great health care when the leader allows this to happen.Overall, Libya has indeed seem some improvement, but it is nowhere near as good as Pro makes it seem, and when the war began, Gaddafi's horrible treatment of his people shows that in terms of health and safety, he has had a net loss for Libya.[1]http://bit.ly...[2]http://bit.ly...[3]http://bit.ly...Education and Illiteracy.My opponent claims that "illiteracy has been almost wiped out", however, this is a stretch from the truth. The actual figure is about 80% of Libyans who are literate[4]. With about 20% of Libyans still completely illiterate, it is an exaggeration to call it "almost wiped out".Nevertheless, an increase in literacy is good, right? Well, yeah, but this has to be put into perspective and compared with other countries. Currently, Libya ranks 10th out of the most literate African countries[4]. Countries such as Zimbabwe & Equatorial Guinea, have literacy rates of around 90%. This is certainly less amazing when it is put into perspective rather than how Pro said it . My opponent has obviously ignored the areas of education that have actually gone down. Gaddafi outlawed the teaching of English in public schools.[5] This is ruining important areas of education. In international relations, English is the most important language, due to the continued dominance of USA and Britain in international affairs. By banning the teaching of English completely, Gaddafi is ruining the education/literacy of the next generation of Libyans, as by not being able to speak or read English, the next generation of Libyans i.e. Libya's future, will be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to international relations. This is clearly Gaddafi ruining other important types of literacy/education.As you can see, some types of literacy has gone up, the opposition has exaggerated how great this actually is and has ignored some very important negative effects Gaddafi has had on Libya's education. Gaddafi has caused a net loss when it comes to education and literacy by doing things such as banning the teaching of English, as this outweighs everything else.[4]http://bit.ly...[5]http://nyti.ms...Although while Gaddafi was in power, Libya did have some improvements, but his outlawing of areas of education and constant neglect of health problems (especially during the war) show that his effect on Libya was a net loss.Effects on the World:Pro talks about Gaddafi's "support" of Mandela, but this was solely because he tried to oppose what the West supported and support what the West didn't. The west ignored South Africa as Pro has said himself, and so Gaddafi supported him and his cause. Did Gaddafi have any impact on the ending of Apartheid? None at all, and so there is no need to go further on this point. Like this point, most of Pro's other points are also pointless/false.To explain that Gaddafi was a net loss for the world, I will be talking about his support of terrorism.Terrorism:Fact: Gaddafi supported terrorists all around the world, even ones which had nothing to do with him or Libya. Gaddafi shipped arms/ammunition to the IRA so they could attack Britain[6]. This is a pointless support of terror which has been bad for the world.In 1986 Libyan agents bombed a nightclub in Berlin. This caused the death of 3 and injuries of over 200. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing caused the death of 270 people[6]. Pro stated that Gaddafi "[paid] millions in compensation to the victims". Libya had to claim responsibility for the bombings if it wanted to have sanctions removed. Gaddafi was never truly sorry. He supported these acts of terror.Pro then lists some of Gaddafi's acts in the international community, such as "standing before the UN General Assembly". Gaddafi spoke for 90min instead of his allowed 15 and condemned the Security Council as a feudal organization[7]. Like this example, most of Gaddafi's acts in the international community have been pointless attacks on others and sponsoring terror. Someone who does this has clearly caused a net loss for the world.[6]http://bit.ly...[7]http://nyti.ms...I have run out of characters describing the negative consequences of Gaddafi so I will continue in the next round.Someone who bans the teaching of English has not improved literacy, someone who commits human rights crimes has not improved healthcare and someone who supports acts of terror cannot be called a hero. A country does not rebel against a leader who does good, only against one which causes a net loss.My opponent's points are far outweighed by what I've just said. By the way, Pro should try to spell "Muammar Gaddafi" correctly if he wants to seem credible.Gaddafi's cons outweigh his pros and he has caused a net loss for the world.