Southern Libya Is A Nice Vacation Destination

Thank you for starting this debate! Now I will refute the formidable objections raised by my opponent. Rebuttal: 1. On the Social Context of the Words In The Resolution. While I agree with my Opponent that "nice" and "vacation" both have social context, I contend that the context is impossible to truly define, and that we could argue all day about the social context behind these words. The fact of the matter is that I have clearly defined the words "vacation" and "nice" from a reputable dictionary, and my Opponent has not. Vacation is clearly defined as "An extended period of recreation, esp. one spent away from home or in traveling", recreation is clearly defined as "an activity or pastime" and nice is clearly defined as "Pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory" so all of my examples still are, by definition, examples of "nice vacations". My Opponent does not provide any source, evidence, or definition of the social context of these words, only his personal opinion and thus his claim is invalid. 2. On the topicality of the civil war. My Opponent clearly stated in the first round that "Pro must convincingly argue that southern Libya as it is right now is a nice vacation destination". Since I, as the Pro, must argue that Southern Libya is a good vacation spot "right now" than any arguments based on the future or past from either myself or my opponent are invalid. My Opponent also states that "The potential for it to move south impacts whether or not southern Libya is a nice vacation destination right now". That is not a topical argument, because as he stated in the very beginning we are discussing Southern Libya as it is RIGHT NOW. We are NOT discussing the future of Southern Libya by any means. 3. Danger to tourists during the civil war Firstly I contend that Gaddafi's power in the South is largely gone, he no longer has the soldiers to spare to "arrest, imprison or even kill tourists". Indeed, one of Gaddafi's generals who has defected, General Melud Massoud Halassa stated "Thousands of members of the armed forces have defected or deserted, especially over the past two weeks. There are defections every day. Everyone who gets an opportunity grabs it," and Gaddafi's army is estimated to only be 1/5th of it's original size.[1]. Gaddafi does not have enough soldiers to spare to arrest and guard prisoners. The Con might state that Gaddafi could still kill the tourists, and I say it's true that that's a possibility but it is unlikely. Indeed, Gaddafis forces captured and later released three Dutch marines.[2] These men were enemy combatants, and they were not killed, so why would Gaddafi waste time, ammunition, and harm the morale of his troops just to kill innocent tourists? I would also ask my Opponent to explain why Gaddafi would kill innocent tourists (thus committing war crimes) when many (such as Senator John McCain) are already calling for him to be tried for war crimes.[3]. My Opponent attacked my first contention, stating "Considering the perspectives of the people in the prisons, failed states, or areas of genocide while they would likely latch on to a chance to escape to southern Libya it would be unlikely they would be going there thinking of the "nice vacation" they are going to have." With this attack he is using his personal definition of vacation. But since all of my examples match up with the criteria given in my definitions to be "nice vacations" they are still valid, even if my Opponent (or you judges) don't see it that way. He attacked my Contention two stating "Gaddafi's supporters if they escaped to Southern Libya would not be vacationing either they would be joining up with their "comrades" to help them fight the rebels." Again, vacation is specifically defined as "An extended period of recreation, esp. one spent away from home or in traveling", and nice is defined as "Pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory". So here's an example: a Gaddafi supporter who's home is in Northern Libya travels to the South voluntarily to escape persecution from the rebels. Since it is an agreeable journey away from ones home it is, by definition a nice vacation for these people. And even if we accept my opponents argument that Gaddafi supporters would go south to help fight the rebels, it is irrelevant because recreation is defined as "an activity or pastime", and fighting is an activity. In conclusion: My Opponent was not careful with the wording of the resolution when he instigated this debate. It states "Southern Libya is a nice vacation destination". It does not (nor does he state in the opening round) to whom it is nice, how often it is nice, or "in general" or "on balance" it is nice. The Pros job is to show examples where Southern Libya can be considered a Nice Vacation destination. If the Pro can do that, than this resolution must be affirmed. I ask the judges not to vote on whether or not they personally would vacation to Southern Libya, but rather vote on if I have provided specific, valid examples of times where Libya could be considered "nice". Thank you, and please affirm. Sources: 1. http://www.theaustralian.com.au... 2. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...