America should send troops into Darfur

PRO: "I find that definiton of terms used is irrelevent to helping the cause in general and in fact is useless in the solvency of this problem." REBUTTAL: What are you talking about? You said "I believe that if we can take the time to destroy the middle east on terms that the u.s.a.fails to disclose we should be able to send some troops to darfur." I said, correctly, that just because we are "able" to do it, doesn't mean it should be done. If you want your words understood, say what you mean. PRO: "-On the basis of the fact that we are "able to send troops to Darfur doesnt mean we should do it", leads me to a single question for you to ponder; Do you find that we should lead a continued revenge in Iraq as we have for the past eight years while women are getting raped and fathers are leaving and not returning while his heart broken children are 'waiting up' for him? or Would you like to leave Iraq (where we already have proposed an uproar) and save some of the 500 and counting people that die each day in Darfur? You Decide" REBUTTAL: My opponent has presented a false dichotomy. She has demanded I make the choice between staying in Iraq and helping Darfur. To that I would answer 'neither', because the two are not mutually exclusive. PRO: "I was stating that America is not disclosing any information on the Iraq War giving the Americans a unknown idea of the actions and obviously showing that nothing is major is going on, therefor we should leave and help the people of Darfur." REBUTTAL: Iraq has nothing to do with Darfur! Nothing at all. I agree totally that we should leave Iraq, I believe we should have done that a long time ago, if we ever should have went there at all. But this has nothing to do with Darfur, so stop pretending it does. The two are NOT mutually exclusive events. PRO: "If you must know, I specifically named America because that is the topic country and that i really didnt find that we need to name each of the "few hundred countries on Earth"." REBUTTAL: So you are admitting what I suspected in Round 1; you made that supposed U.N. quote up, and passed it off as official U.N. charter. Not cool. PRO: "Meaning any other country that we believe may need to help. Such as certain countries may hold a specific item that "the people that will help" will need to stop this genocide." REBUTTAL: Dig this wording! "That WE believe should help". Who the f*ck died and made America boss of the world? We should have no more a bearing on international affairs than China, Australia, Sweden. There is nothing inherent to America which puts us above any other country. PRO: "No country is more necessary than the next, just maybe America needs to be the bigger and more powerful person and help these people." REBUTTAL: Please show why American men's lives are more expendible than men from other countries. Your argument rests on this information, and you have done nothing to show it thus far. PRO: "Because we are stronger, more equipt, and although not perfect, more stable than some countries to help. We are also the bigger person." REBUTTAL: China has a larger army than the U.S., which completely quashes your argument here. Please show why America must be the country to stand up to terrorists the world-over, when there are larger armies than ours. It doesn't make sense.