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

Welfare of people & The Civil War:My opponent claims "[Libya's HDI] as higher then any of her African neihbors. .. "This is not true. Libya does not have the highest HDI in Africa. The country with the highest HDI is Seychelles with 0.806, far higher than Libya's 0.755[1]. The coloured map my opponent provides is not reliable as it is hard to see small countries. That said, this debate is not about which African country is the best, I am simply pointing out a false statement from my opponent. Now I would like to talk about the revolutionary war. My opponent embedded a self made "documentary" about the revolution. I'm sorry, but this documentary is uncredible. There are no interviews, no documents, no sources etc. This is just a bunch of videos with a voiceover. This has nothing to make it a reliable non-biased source. Am I missing a "Part-2" with all the sources or something? If so, then sorry. But just this video alone is uncredible. It is incredibly biased. My opponent's argument is about how the rebels were bad. He states things such as "Rebels sluaghtering soliders", "crush the Pro-Gaddafhi supporters" etc. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the rebels were a bunch of horrible people who committed every single war crime. It doesn't matter how "bad" the rebels were, this debate is about Gaddafi's actions being harmful, not about if there are people worse than him. Whether the rebels were bad or not, war crimes against them are still war crimes regardless of whether they are murderers or freedom fighters. It is not right to label all the rebels as bad people, many were fighting for their freedom, but this is irrelevant to the debate. I would like to instead talk about these supposedly "bad" rebels. What drives them to be "bad"? If they truly commit such horrific crimes, what is their reason for doing so? Someone who would commit such atrocities must clearly have been incredibly motivated, and what motivated them? Gaddafi. These rebels were motivated by their desire to remove Gaddafi from his reign. If they were happy about his control of the country, the bad rebels would not be motivated to do such things. But since they were motivated to go so far, Gaddafi's leadership must truly have been harmful. These rebels may have committed crimes, because their want to get rid of Gaddafi's tyranny was so great. People will always prefer a world where they are better of compared to one where they are not. If these Libyan citizens were happy under Gaddafi's rule then they wouldn't have tried to change anything. The fact they staged a revolution shows that they knew that Gaddafi's leadership was harmful and so they needed to change it for their own good. These actions show that Libyan citizens themselves knew that Gaddafi's leadership was overall harmful to them. My opponent blames the war on "the West". Yes, NATO forces intervened. Why? What do they have to get out of it? War is terribly expensive, NATO doesn't just jump into conflicts for fun. In this case NATO intervened because the UN voted on it (Resolution 1973)[2]. The UN represents the best interests of the world. If the UN democratically believed that Gaddafi's leadership was harmful, then this represents the world's view. This shows Gaddafi's leadership was harmful to the world. My opponent blames everything on the rebels & "the West", yet the rebels were motivated by Gaddafi's cruelty, and the intervention of "the West" (actually the world, as it was a UN majority decision) shows that the whole world knew how harmful Gaddafi's leadership was: Enough to need to use war to end it. [1] bit. ly/ftjl5v[2] bit. ly/fwGEoR Libyan Health & Literacy:My opponent seems to have just Copy+Pasted some health report here (Source link please? ). You'll notice that this health report includes dates from 1970 - 2009. Of course, the civil war was 2011, and most of my arguments were on civilian condition during the war. I agree that things got slightly better from 1970 - 2009, but:Things got slightly better all over the world in this period anyway, a lot of this can't be attributed to directly being Gaddafi. Advancements in medicine etc. are to be thanked for most of this, not Gaddafi's "Leadership". Of course, this report stops before the revolution. The events during the revolution happened under Gaddafi's reign also and so cannot be excluded. My opponent would surely like to exclude it as it is this period of time when Libyan health completely failed under Gaddafi. I have already mentioned that up to 25,000 Libyans died in the war[3]. There were many actions Gaddafi could have taken to end the conflict early e. g. Held diplomatic meetings rather than attack, but he didn't. This shows another flaw under his leadership. This debate is all about weighing up the pros and cons of Gaddafi. Yes, it is true that things became slightly better after 1970, but you cannot ignore what happened under Gaddafi's reign after 2011's war began. The death of 25,000 and the displacement of 1000s more completely outweighs what happened before that. Now I would like to talk about literacy. Pro tries to strawman me as someone who believes English is supreme and must be enforced on everyone. I am not saying anyone should be forced to learn English. Gaddafi outlawed English teaching in schools[4]. There is a difference between not enforcing and completely banning. Gaddafi denied the Libyan children their right to learn in schools, and for that reason you cannot say he improved literacy. Whether anyone likes the English language or not, it is undeniable that (due to US/UK), English is incredibly important in the international community. By banning the teaching of English in schools, Gaddafi is disadvantaging the next generation of Libyans - Libya's future. The casaulties of Libya's civil war are huge and outweigh what improvement there was, under Gaddafi, health has overall gotten worse. Gaddafi's banning of teaching English is an impingement of freedom and also means that under his rule, Literacy has gotten worse too. This is a net harm. [3] bit. ly/JHyxND [4] nyti. ms/18mQOJbTerrorism & Idi Amin:Now I would like to talk about terrorism. Pro tries to justify Gaddafi's military support of the IRA by saying Britain is a bad Imperial Power which has "had their homeland occupied". It is not relevant which side is morally right in that conflict, terrorism is not the way to enforce any belief, right or wrong. Gaddafi's support of the IRA resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians. This is obviously a huge harm. Gaddafi's provisions of arms and ammunition to groups which committed terror have had a net harm on the world. I would like to bring up a new point: Gaddafi supported Idi Amin[5], someone who is responsible for the killing of up to 500,000 people[6]. Gaddafi sent Libyan troops in 1972 & 1979[5] to defend Amin when he was attacked by an opposition. Gaddafi was always a strong supporter of Amin and defended him, resulting in the prolonging of his reign. Gaddafi is indirectly responsible for the deaths of those who died because of Amin because without Gaddafi, Amin's reign would not have lasted as long. Gaddafi's support of Amin has also caused a net harm to the world. Gaddafi has always been a direct supporter of terror throughout history. He directly supplied the IRA which resulted in many deaths of innocent people. He also supported and defended Amin, which makes him also indirectly responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people. These are huge harms on the world as a result of Gaddafi's rule. [5] atfp. co/eAlrCI [6] bit. ly/WbBevpGaddafi's treatment of Libyans during the war have had a net harm on health. His banning of teaching English has had a net harm on literacy. His support of Terrorist groups such as the IRA and Idi Amin have had a huge net harm on world safety and peace. Because of this, Gaddafi's leadership has had a net harm on Libya and the World.