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

I will sum up the main points of this debate and explain how in each area, Gaddafi's cons outweigh his pros. Civil WarMy opponent claims that due to the rebels' actions during the revolution, "it absolutley justifies millitary action". This is not true. In order for Gaddafi's war crimes against the rebels to have a net gain, it has to be proven that the rebels were murdering civilians. Only in this case, would it create a net benefit (in terms of lives) to Libya for Gaddafi to commit these crimes. However, the rebels were not mistreating civilians. The only people that the rebels killed were the opposing soldiers. Therefore, Gaddafi's war crimes against the rebels does not create a net gain. Now, again for the sake of argument, let's assume that the rebels were bad people, I have a already explained that people will always prefer a world where they are better off than one where they are not. Because of this, for the rebels to be motivated to launch a revolution, it shows truly how much they despised Gaddafi's rule over Libya. If Gaddafi's rule had a net gain, these rebels would be happy to live they way they were, but the fact that they were driven to revolution is proof that people in Libya knew Gaddafi's leadership was net harmful to them, and that they had to change it. I would like now talk about the atrocities Gaddafi's forces committed in the war. First, I would like to backtrack to the beginning of the uprising. When the revolution was budding, there were no armed rebels, only ordinary people protesting on the streets. Protesting is a human right. However, Gaddafi ordered his forces to murder these innocent civilians[1]. Even the international community court sought to arrest Gaddafi's officials for crimes against humanity. Gaddafi's forces also committed mass rape against civilians[2]. Gaddafi's forces used land mines in civilian areas which is a huge threat to the lives of ordinary people[3]. Gaddafi also used shelling on civilian homes, causing the deaths of hundreds of Libyan citizens[4]. These war crimes against innocent citizens are clearly a net harm on Libya. Even if my opponent could somehow justify war crimes against the rebels, there is absolutely no reason for Gaddafi's forces to commit crimes against citizens. For this reason, Gaddafi has caused a net harm during the civil war. My opponent gets a bit sidetracked when he began to talk about the technicalities of NATO and the UN. My point of the UN was that the security resolution was a democratically chosen option since it was a majority decision. It does not matter if there were some countries who did not agree, the point is that the majority of the world knew that Gaddafi had such a big net harm that he had to be removed. Gaddafi's war crimes against civilians cannot be justified, and for this reason, he has caused a net harm during the war. The majority of the world agreed with this, hence the UN resolution to intervene. [1] nyti. ms/12HZEO4[2] bit. ly/mtk85a [3] bit. ly/15a5yJF[4] bit. ly/11qjhgPHealth Pro believes that I admitted "Gaddafi did infact benifiet Libya". This is a misinterpretation of what I said. What I stated was that while Gaddafi was in power, things did get slightly better from 1970 - 2009. However, as I have already said, a lot of this cannot be attributed to Gaddafi. Pro has brought up the argument of health improving. Before the war, this was true, but as I had said, health improved all over the world, and this was due to external factors and not Gaddafi. The improvement of health can be attributed to the advancement of medicine and the improvement of technology. These things are not a result of Gaddafi's leadership, as Gaddafi did not create or make other people create these advancements in medicine or technology. As I had talked about in the last round, despite the fact that things got better from 1970 - 2009, we have to take into account what happened in the war too as this also happened as a result of Gaddafi. I have explained how the harms to health during the war outweigh what improvement there was previously, if those improvements could even be credited to Gaddafi anyway. The deaths of up to 25,000 and the misplacement of 1000s more are far larger harms that outweigh everything that happened before[6]. Perhaps things got better before 2011, but the Net result is a harm if Gaddafi's actions during the revolutionary war is taken into account. Unfortunately, Pro's source for his point on the war (xinhuanet. com) leads to a 404 error. What improvement there was after 1970 cannot be credited to Gaddafi, and Gaddafi's actions during the war which resulted in the deaths of thousands has had a net harm on health. Now onto literacy. Overall, this point doesn't hold much weight anyway. This is because, under any situation, the death of 1000s clearly outweighs people learning to read. That said, I will explain why Gaddafi has had net harms on education anyway. As I previously stated, Gaddafi had outlawed the teaching of English in schools[7]. I've already explained how this disadvantages the next generation of Libyans as English is such an important language that banning it will have net harms. This is just one example of how Gaddafi tries to control education. Education, the right to learn, should be free, not controlled as Gaddafi has tried to make it. Someone who controls what language people can and cannot learn, instead of letting people choose to learn whichever one they want to (especially the most important one), is a net harm on education. [6] bit. ly/JHyxND[7] nyti. ms/18mQOJbTerrorism:My opponent himself admitted that "It is totally true that Gaddafhi supported Amin and IRA". But he tries to say that Gaddafi paid compensation for another act of terror. This is true, however his payment of compensation is completely outweighed by his support of the IRA and Amin. I have already said that Amin is responsible for the killing of up to 500,000 people[8]. I have also talked about how the IRA are responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. No amount of money can replace a life, especially not the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that Gaddafi's leadership has definitely contributed to. Gaddafi's sending of soldiers to defend Amin from his opposition is responsible for the prolonging of his reign of terror. Similarly, Gaddafi contributed to the IRA's efforts to commit terror amongst innocent people. Deaths are probably the biggest harms to the world someone can cause. Gaddafi, due to his constant support of terrorist groups is responsible for many deaths. The terror that Gaddafi has supported far outweighs the amount of money he has paid out. [8] bit. ly/WbBevpIn short:Gaddafi's war crimes against civilians during the war are unjustifiable and have caused a net harm. Gaddafi causing the death of 1000s in the war has caused a net harm to health. Gaddafi's banning of English is a restriction of educational freedom and has caused a net harm to education. Gaddafi's support of terrorist groups has caused the deaths of 1000s and is a net harm to the world. Gaddafi did do some good things, but these are always outweighed by his harms. The improvement of health after 1970 is not the result of Gaddafi and is due to external factors. This improvement is outweighed by the deaths during the war caused by Gaddafi's troops. The improvement in literacy is outweighed by the banning of areas of education that Gaddafi didn't like. This impingement on the freedom of learning outweighs the rise in literacy. Gaddafi's payment of compensation obviously does not outweigh the hundreds of thousands dead due to his terrorism support. I thank Pro for a very interesting debate. But if you agree that the deaths of thousands is bad, if you agree that war crimes against civilians is bad and if you agree that the military support of terrorism is bad, then you will agree with me, you will agree with the UN, and you will agree that Gaddafi's leadership has caused a net harm to Libya and the world.