Intervening to create democracy in third-world countries is the obligation of capable societies

I offer my sincere apologies for not meeting the time deadline for Round 3. I have been moving house this weekend, and don't currently have an internet connection at home.Thank you, Con, for your words of welcome. It seems we’re in for a very interesting conversation over these next 3 rounds! First, some comments about the flow of the debate so far:Comment 1: Since I take the Pro position, should I be using the “P1, P2…Pn” set, or are P and C used relative to one’s own argument, i.e. points for Con would be P and points against Con are C? For this round, I will use P and C as they stand relative to my arguments.Comment 2: Please explain what you meant by “TURN”? (as used in Round 2 Con P1)Comment 3: Nice Hitchens quote, and aptly raised. I believe that arguments based primarily on past events are too easily corrupted by bias, incorrectly transmitted information and incomplete context. That’s why my preference is to build a case primarily on reasonable sub-contentions and syllogism rather than use past events as the primary evidence (it is to this method of arguing that I referred in Round 1). I hope you will accept this interpretation of evidence, though it contrasts to your requested “case study”.Now it’s time for me to attempt to show the weaknesses in Con’s case.Con’s CaseC1: Your point in summary appears to be that developed, democratic countries do not have the means to intervene in every nation that has a flawed system of governance. I agree, but your point is unimportant in the context of this debate. The debate topic is that “intervention to create democracy in third world countries is the obligation of capable societies. If a society is not capable of intervening because it is too busy helping someone else out, I argue they have no obligation to intervene additionally and concurrently in that other nation. To this end, I made a comparable point last round, P1, that “can implies ought”, which is developed below.Operation Iraqi Freedom has certainly taken its toll on the American economy and society, as well as that of those nations who contributed to the campaign. The problem with you bringing up Iraq is that the war should never have started in the first place. Consider the Baker Report, commissioned before 9/11. One cannot help but see that the idea was not about ridding Iraq of WMDs or of toppling Saddam Hussein. America’s objective was to secure a reliable source of oil for the next few years. As for the folks who were persuaded by the wartime propaganda and joined the cause, they should have backed out too as soon as it became apparent to them that there were no WMDs or WMPs to be found.C2: I take it the thrust of your point is to suggest democracy is not an inherently superior model. A working democracy gives people what they want. Your case is an interesting for sure, so let’s examine your argument a little closer:If I’m reading you correctly, you’ve said that in Egypt the flourishing of democracy was responsible for a setback to women’s and homosexual rights. May I suggest you alter your wording to read “equality of treatment regardless of sex or sexual orientation” as no rights are exclusively afforded to women and homosexuals. My response is that democracy is the best protection a country can have against violators of human rights. That’s not to say that in some democratic countries, like Egypt, that people will always choose to vote in politicians that do the best job of protecting equality of treatment for everyone, but compare this with the protection offered by communism or fascism for example, where there is next to no protection for these individuals' rights.Let’s now return to my arguments and see how they fared.Pro's CaseP1: “Can implies ought”. Sorry, I totally misread that source, and what I wrote was much too ambiguous. However, it is not my intention to drop the point, in fact I believe this idea is at the very core of my case. Let me try a syllogism to explain what I meant and resurrect its pertinence:Premise 1: Agents encounter situations where ethical responsibility is in play (We must make a choice)Premise 2: An agent does good by choosing outcomes where their ethical responsibility is intact (To help is to do good)Premise 3: Excepting limited time or resources, agents have no sufficient reason not to do good (We should help unless we are already helping someone else)Conclusion 1: Agents with the ability to help in a given situation have ethical responsibility to help (Can implies ought)Now it should be clear that the argument was not designed to imply that you have ethical responsibility to break the arm of your brother who is supposedly 60 years your junior. Also, I’m happy to admit that this argument implies that democracy is a good thing without giving proof – that burden is sustained by P2.P2: “Democracy ensures human rights”. You raised some good points against P2 last time, but as contentious as the point may be, I believe the point still stands in my favour. What you’ve attempted to do is to prove that some democracies aren’t perfect to an extent, while once again ignoring the darkness of dictatorships, military juntas, or other equally barbaric systems of governance. I’m repeating myself, but democracy as a system of governance is the best at protecting human rights.The raison d’etre of the point is to establish the goodness of democracy, and by extension, that creating or sustaining democracy in countries where human rights are threatened is also a good thing. So long as I can do this, the associated premise achieves its task.P3: “Citizens incapable of restoring democracy” Regarding the claim I made last round that the majority of people in third world countries that are capable of overhauling the government are part of the problem, this point is probably going to amount to a matter of opinion, unless someone can find some aggregated statistics on nations deposing bad systems of governance.But let’s skip the opinion tennis and talk about the options instead. If a country’s citizens are unable to depose of a dictator themselves, it’s perfectly fair for them to seek help from Uncle Sam and his friends. Conversely, if they are able to, this usually doesn't come without years and years of suffering under the same man before positive changes happen. Then there are the cases that nobody has been able to fix up yet, like Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe have suffered under Mugabe for 32 years, and while Mugabe is alive he will continue to oppress his people.P4: “Diplomacy will not resolve issues” Perhaps a better way to have stated this point would be to say “Diplomacy will not resolve all the issues all the time”. As I haven’t done this from the beginning, I’ve left myself open to be misinterpreted. Yes I’m taking an active view of intervention, but only once diplomatic attempts and trade embargoes bear no fruit. To define intervention as including diplomatic measures would make the topic undebatable.P5: “The UN can help”. Of course the point adds to my argument. If a country expects to preserve its integrity when trying to bring about democracy in another land, it had sure better do it in a diplomatic way on a global scale, especially if there is disagreement from some. The UN helps to establish legitimacy to an intervention. If you wish to maintain your objection Con, please show how UN-birthed legitimacy does not help.P6: "Intervention creates stability" I’m running out of characters. If my opponent wishes to host a further debate on the topic of this point, I’d happily accept, especially since you’ve shown interest in its development.The bottom line so far: Con has attacked some minor points around the periphery of my case, but key points of P1-3 are still standing strong. Tune in next round for P4-6 developed.